LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 

dJjap,.. (?tiptjrig^i !f o + 

Shelf.-... 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 






THE 



7i' . 



C|e0kgg »f $fcfo <%ktir* 



AN 



ATTEMPT TO EXHIBIT THE DOCTRINES NOW PREVALENT 

IN THE ORTHODOX CONGREGATIONAL CHURCHES 

OF NEW ENGLAND. 



BY DAVID A. WALLACE, 



Boston. 



WITH AN INTRODUCTION 



BY DANIEL DANA, D. D. 



BO STON: 
CROCKER AND BREWSTER, 

47, Washington Street. 
1856. 



THE 



C|e0lagi| of ffcfo (Jntgfenk 



AN 



ATTEMPT TO EXHIBIT THE DOCTRINES NOW PREVALENT 

IN THE ORTHODOX CONGREGATIONAL CHURCHES 

OF NEW ENGLAND. 



BY DAVID A. WALLACE, 



1 



Boston. 



WITH AN INTRODUCTION 



BY DANIEL DANA, D. D. 




BO STON: 
CROCKER AND BREWSTER, 

47, Washington Street. 
1856. 




r r* 



<b° 



VP 




Entered according to an Act of Congress, in the year 1856, by 

CROCKER AND BREWSTER, 
In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of Massachusetts. 



ADVERTISEMENT. 



In the following pages, the author has attempted to state 
the Theology prevalent in the Congregational Churches of 
New England usually styled "orthodox." His aim has 
been to aid inquirers, whether in New England or out of it, 
who have not access to the original sources of information, 
in coming to a knowledge of the facts. While he has 
been careful to ascertain the truth, and state it clearly, he 
cannot flatter himself, that he has perfectly succeeded. 
Any mistakes, however, into which he has fallen, when 
pointed out, he will be most happy to correct. 



INTRODUCTION. 



It is generally admitted as a fact, that the 
Scriptures of God utter their great and saving 
truths in much simplicity and plainness. Mira- 
cles, it is confessed, are not excluded ; but these 
miracles are propounded, not so much to our rea- 
son, as to an unquestioning and child-like faith. 
Far from obscuring the doctrines at large, they 
set them in their purest light, and reveal them in 
their heavenly beauty, and glory, and harmony. 

Yet, paradoxical as it may seem, their very 
simplicity has proved a fruitful occasion of their 
being misunderstood and misrepresented. Specu- 
lative men, men of acute minds, and reasoning 
talents, coming to the Bible, and finding there 
nothing which a well-instructed child cannot un- 
derstand nearly as well as themselves, are dissatis- 
fied and disgusted. Hence philosophy is summon- 
ed to supply the defects, and adorn the artless- 
ness, of scripture. But the attempt is fatal. By 
these devices, men's minds are unhinged, reason 
takes the place of faith, and endless doubts and 



misgivings are substituted for positive and satis- 
fying certainty. Breaking loose from the eternal 
truths of God, men are seduced into a labyrinth of 
interminable and destructive error. 

When we read the Epistles of St. Paul, we 
find that he rebuked this arrogant species of phi- 
losophy, viewing it as eminently and irreconcila- 
bly hostile to the pure truths of the gospel. In 
one passage, he brands it with the epithet of 
science falsely so called. And most justly. For 
what a wretched thing is that science which un- 
derstands every thing but the truth of God, and 
the way of human salvation. How mis-called is 
that philosophy which arrays itself against divine 
and everlasting truth. Genuine philosophy is mo- 
dest and unassuming. It delights to open its eyes 
to the light of heaven. It finds its most honora- 
ble and delightful place at the feet of Jesus. 
While the proud and self-sufficient reasoner, feel- 
ing no need of divine instruction, turns away from 
heavenly light, and clinging to the feeble taper of 
his own reason, wanders in the path leading to 
eternal darkness and eternal death. 

These remarks are strongly confirmed by a sig- 
nal passage in the New Testament history. The 
great Apostle of the Gentiles spent some days at 
Athens, a city which was not only the boasted 
light of Greece, but the seat of a great portion of 
the science, art, literature, and refinement which 
then existed in the world. And what was the 
Apostle's success in this favored spot ? Less, 



probably, than in any other which was visited 
with his preaching. For while in some regions, 
comparatively dark and uncultivated, he witnessed 
many trophies of divine grace, his success in 
Athens was so small, that a few scattered indi- 
viduals comprise the whole catalogue of his con- 
verts. 

In modern times, the experiment of the power 
of reason, when divorced from Revelation, has 
been conspicuously made in Germany. In that 
favored land, the birth-place of Luther and the 
Reformation, who would not have wished that 
pure religion might have lingered for many a cen- 
tury ? But such wishes have been sadly disap- 
pointed. About a century since, there arose there 
certain philosophers who, closing their eyes to the 
light of Heaven, and trampling on the teachings 
of the Bible, determined to make a religion for 
themselves, and for the community. They were 
men not destitute of genius, or of learning, or of 
research. Still less were they wanting in self- 
confidence. But they were awfully destitute of 
that humility to which Heaven is used to confine 
its holy light and aid. Their project was attended 
with fatal success. Being followed by a long line 
of successors of their own spirit, they poured dark- 
ness on the public mind ; darkness which might be 
felt, and which is actually felt at the present day. 
Under its baleful influence, men of knowledge and 
refinement have yielded themselves to religious 
absurdities which w r ould disgrace the lowest state 



8 



of society. Germany witnesses at this day, in her 
Universities, her Theological Seminaries, and in 
her pulpits, men conspicuous for infidelity. The 
consequence of this state of things is natural and 
inevitable. The whole land is deluged with error 
and infidelity, with vices and crimes. We are re- 
cently informed, indeed, of some appearance of a 
revulsion. It is announced that men of sound 
minds and sound theology are lifting a powerful 
voice against the errors and abomination of the 
time ; and that they find listeners too. Still may 
it not require a century, or even more, to repair 
the ravages which have been made on the cause 
of truth, and the intellects of the community ? 

Hence arises a question of no common interest. 
What is the influence which German theology 
has exercised for years, and is now exercising, on 
the theology of our own country ? Of the reality 
of this influence, and of its extent, there can be no 
doubt. The simple fact that our young preachers, 
either at the commencement of their course, or in 
their preparation for it, are so prone to resort to 
that country, speaks an intelligible language. On 
this subject, we need not adopt a strain of indis- 
criminate reproof. A variety of motives and of 
circumstances may operate in the case. The his- 
tory, geography and chronology of the Scriptures ; 
their criticism, literature and antiquities, all have 
their importance and use. In these departments, 
the German religionists have exhibited indefatiga- 
ble activity, and amassed immense stores of 



knowledge. Of these accumulations, religious 
students may safely and wisely avail themselves. 
Yet if, in these pursuits, their minds should be in- 
sensibly drawn away from the great and distin- 
guishing doctrines of scripture, or should receive 
perverse or indistinct impressions of them, the evil 
would be immense. The largest acquisitions of 
such knowledge would but ill compensate for the 
want or loss of the essential and saving truths of 
God's word. 

The attribute of Scripture which preeminently 
stamps its value and importance, is its Inspiration. 
Here lies the basis of all the instruction ; the hope 
and comfort which it imparts. To renounce this 
precious attribute, is to give up ourselves to end- 
less doubt and blank despair. While to have our 
faith in it shaken, or impaired, is to want the first 
and most essential qualification of christian in- 
structors. Surely no one will contend that our 
young men, destined to the ministry, and subject- 
ed to the influences we have described, are in no 
danger of contamination. 

Another source of danger to our country is 
found in the introduction of German writings. 
These, within a few years, have been imported to 
our land in a profusion formerly unknown. For 
about a century past, Germany has been the 
grand corrupter of Europe and the world. By its 
novels and poetry, and false philosophy, by its ra- 
tionalism, and pantheism, and atheism, (for pan- 
theism is substantially atheism,) it has spread 



10 



havock through the morals and religion of Europe. 
For a long period, however, this great and tre- 
mendous evil was much confined to the more 
speculative and literary circles. But in more re- 
cent time, the language being better understood, 
and translations being abundantly multiplied, the 
evil has had a far more extensive diffusion, and 
found its way to all classes of society. And it 
cannot be sufficiently deplored, that the case is 
substantially the same in the country in which we 
live. Formerly, these skeptical and infidel no- 
tions were chiefly broached in books designed for 
speculative readers. But more recently, they find 
a place in writings intended for all classes, not 
excepting the most ignorant and uncultivated. 
So that, as we are become a nation of readers, 
these last bid fair to become as thorough pro- 
ficients in infidelity as their superiors. And it 
must be confessed that in this school, they are 
often willing and docile students. Few, probably, 
are aware of that awful deterioration of religious 
views, feelings and practice which has swept over 
New England within the last thirty or forty years, 
and which threatens to sweep away every thing 
worthy the name of religion. One thing is cer- 
tain. Unbelief is the order of the day; the fatal 
malady of the age. That religion which our pil- 
grim fathers brought with them, which they cher- 
ished as their dearest possession, and which they 
grasped to their hearts in life and in death, is, by 
thousands of their descendants, ignored, or denied, 
or treated with neglect and contempt. 



11 



It cannot be denied that the great and distin- 
guishing doctrines of the gospel are, by thousands 
of our christian community, disbelieved and con- 
tradicted; perhaps despised and ridiculed. Other 
thousands there are, who, at some period of their 
lives, have solemnly declared their belief in them. 
Their hearts, however, were never truly reconciled 
to them. And finding that they are much op- 
posed, especially in the fashionable world, and 
that much can be plausibly said and reasoned 
against their truth, they rejoice to employ these 
things as pretexts for discarding them altogether, 
and thus escaping their humbling and painful in- 
fluence. 

A third class value themselves on holding their 
judgment in suspense between these doctrines and 
their opposites. This, they contend, is dictated 
by candor and impartiality. They hold that on 
these topics, the Bible itself is obscure and indeci- 
sive ; not fitted to give satisfaction to inquiring 
minds. Yet what is this but virtually to allege 
that the Book of God has been given us in vain ; 
that while possessing a Revelation from God, we 
need another revelation to explain it, and that that 
inspired volume, which was designed to guide us 
to truth and heaven, is wholly incompetent to its 
object, and has utterly failed in its effect. 

We may not neglect a fourth class of the relig- 
ious in our community. It is composed of those 
who firmly believe, and cordially love, the distin- 
guishing doctrines of the gospel — doctrines at once 



12 



lying at its foundation, and manifest on the sur- 
face. On these doctrines hang their immortal 
hopes, and from them they derive their best conso- 
lations. At the same time, they are surrounded 
by multitudes by whom these truths are ignored, 
or disregarded, or opposed, or treated with scorn. 
Yet they withhold from these truths their open and 
vigorous support. Here is an inconsistency which 
we cannot sufficiently lament. And surely it will 
not always last. These good men must ultimate- 
ly come forward, and, bitterly lamenting their past 
defects, throw all their weight and influence on 
the side of God's despised truth. May Heaven 
grant that this "consummation" so "devoutly to 
be wished" may not come too late. 

There is a class of religionists in our community 
yet unmentioned. They hold that Christians at 
large are generally agreed ; at least that they 
maintain no discrepancies in views which may 
not be easily merged. Let mutual candor and 
conciliation be cherished, and all will be well. 
To contend earnestly for particular doctrines, is 
needless and useless, and tending only to evil. 
Let this disposition subside, and Christians will 
remain in harmony, and the church in peace. 

This train of thought is extremely plausible. 
But it is not more plausible than dangerous. It 
is proper, then, to give it a careful scrutiny. 

The great and absorbing question before the 
christian public is this : do the doctrines which 
have been fashionable, and which are rapidly in- 



13 



creasing in prevalence and extent, agree with the 
oracles of truth ? In other words, are they the 
same doctrines which the church has, in every age, 
found in the Bible ? 

It has been well remarked that deceit lies in 
generals. To come at the truth, then, we must 
descend to particulars. 

The Bible declares, explicitly and uniformly de- 
clares the entire and awful depravity of man; a 
depravity, which, descending from the first pro- 
genitor of the race, has infected all his offspring. 
This is the doctrine which pervades the Scripture 
from beginning to end. The doctrine is strictly 
fundamental. It lies at the basis of the structure 
on which human salvation is built. It gives char- 
acter, complexion and features to all the doctrines 
and provisions of the gospel. It directly follows, 
that as this doctrine is received or rejected, the 
gospel itself is received or rejected. It cannot 
then be denied, that on this very spot, error, es- 
sential error is chargeable on the modern theology. 
It repudiates a cardinal doctrine of the Bible. It 
denies and discards original sin in the sense in 
which it has been understood and maintained by 
the church of God in all ages. That there may 
be no mistake on this vital point, we quote from 
the writings of a professor in the most important 
theological seminary of New England ; a gentle- 
man well known as the chief Expounder and Ad- 
vocate of the new system. In a note appended to 

his Convention Sermon, he writes as follows: 
2 



14 



" Is it said, that a passive nature, existing ante- 
cedently to all free action, is itself, strictly, literally 
sinful ? Then we must have a new language, 
and speak, in prose, of moral patients as well as 
moral agents, of men besinned as well as sinners, 
(for ex vi termini sinners as well as runners must 
be active ;) we must have a new conscience which 
can decide on the moral character of dormant con- 
ditions, as well as of elective preferences ; a new 
law, prescribing the very make of the soul, as well 
as the way in which this soul, when made, shall 
act, and a law which we transgress (for sin is ' a 
transgression of the law ') in being before birth 
passively mis-shapen ; we must also have a new 
Bible, delineating a judgment scene in which 
some will be condemned, not only on account of 
the deeds which they have done in the body, but 
also for having been born with an involuntary 
proclivity to sin, and others will be rewarded not 
only for their conscientious love to Christ, but also 
for a blind nature inducing that love ; we must, in 
fine, have an entirely different class of moral sen- 
timents, and have them disciplined by Inspiration 
in an entirely different manner from the present ; 
for now the feelings of all true men revolt from 
the assertion, that a poor infant dying, if w r e may 
suppose it to die, before its first wrong preference, 
merits for its unavoidable nature, that eternal pun- 
ishment, which is threatened, and justly, against 
the smallest real sin. Although it may seem para- 
doxical to affirm that ' a man may believe a pro- 



15 



position which he knows to be false,' it is yet 
charitable to say that whatever any man may 
suppose himself to believe, he has in fact an 
inward conviction, that 'all sin consists in sin- 
ning.' " 

It is needful here to remark, though the remark 
is uttered with inexpressible pain, that the author 
of the foregoing paragraph has repeatedly declared 
his assent to the Westminster Assembly's Shorter 
Catechism, and as often solemnly engaged to con- 
form his instructions to that Summary of doctrine ; 
expressly discarding the doctrine of Pelagianism. 
It is needless to add, that if the essence of Pela- 
gianism consists in the denial of the native de- 
pravity of man, that signal error is plainly couched 
in the paragraph cited. 

It is not denied that the term depravity is ad- 
mitted into the new theology. But, wonderful as 
it may seem, it is represented as a sinless deprav- 
ity. But who sees not that this is an abuse of 
terms ? But why should such an abuse be admit- 
ted, tending only to vitiate and confound language, 
and to darken a subject which demands the ut- 
most plainness and perspicuity? 

With the doctrine of native depravity, that of 
Regeneration holds a close alliance. Indeed they 
involve each other. Nor is it less evident that the 
views entertained of the one, will greatly modify 
our views of the other. This we should naturally 
anticipate ; and this is found to be the literal fact. 
If man is but partially depraved, a partial regen- 



16 



eration is all which he needs. If only nominally 
depraved, a nominal regeneration is sufficient to 
meet his case. Accordingly, the advocates of the 
new doctrine, while they admit the term regenera- 
tion, eviscerate it of all its meaning and force. 
They do not admit that it involves either a holy 
change, or a change of nature. As to the former 
point; contending, as they do, that all holiness as 
well as sin, consists in action ; and allowing, as 
they must, that all holy action in the creature is 
preceded by regeneration, they cannot surely find 
holiness in regeneration itself. Maintaining that 
Adam, as he came from his Creator's hand, was 
not holy till he began to act, must they not main- 
tain, that those regenerated by the Spirit are not 
holy till they begin to act? As to the other 
point, they deny that human beings are, properly 
speaking, depraved in nature. Where then is the 
necessity, where even the possibility of their being 
regenerated? And what a strange and nonde- 
script kind of regeneration must that be, which 
passes on creatures not in their nature depraved 
and sinful. 

As to the theory that all sin and holiness con- 
sist in action, or exercise, though it assumes the 
proud name of philosophy, we submit that it is as 
contrary to sound philosophy as to common sense 
and the Bible. There are certain states or con- 
ditions of the mind which belong, not to the class 
of volitions, but of principles, propensities, dispo- 
sitions, or affections. But they are not, therefore, 



17 



divested of a decidedly moral character. It would 
be absurd to contend that pride is a volition. Yet 
pride, by universal consent, is the most odious of 
vices. Nor would it be easy to prove that humil- 
ity is a volition. Yet in the judgment of God 
himself, humility is the loveliest of virtues. 

The doctrine of Justification by faith has ever 
been viewed by the church, in its best days, as a 
doctrine of the clearest evidence, and the deepest 
interest. What the great Luther thought of its 
importance is well known. Our puritan fathers 
guarded it with a sleepless vigilance, and zeal- 
ously resisted every attempt to corrupt its purity. 
It has not been altogether so with their descend- 
ants. Within a century or less, this doctrine has 
lost much of the attention and respect which it 
claims. Many divines of some reputation have 
treated it with great neglect. Others, it should 
seem, have scarcely found it in the Bible. While 
others have manifested a wish to expunge it from 
the list of christian doctrines. From the modern 
theology it has experienced much disregard and 
opposition. The treatment which it has recently 
received, would, had it appeared half a century 
since, have been regarded with astonishment, not 
to say with horror. That Christ our Savior, be- 
ing man, so needed obedience for himself as to 
have no merit to impart to his believing people; 
that the imputation of his righteousness is an ab- 
surdity ; and that men must look to their own ho- 
liness and obedience to bring them to heaven — 
2* 



18 

these are among the dreams which are now ex- 
tensively propagated. Thus the proud and self- 
righteous are propped up in their own imaginary- 
goodness; and thus the self-diffident and humble 
are plunged into a species of despondence, and 
even despair. 

It is much to be wished, that those who deny, 
and perhaps denounce the imputation of Adam's 
sin to his posterity, and Christ's righteousness to 
his believing people, would carefully study the 
fifth chapter of Romans. Doubtless they would 
discover that these doctrines are stamped with 
the same divine authority ; that both the one and 
the other are equally and truly doctrines of the 
Bible. " As by the offence of one, judgment 
came upon all men to condemnation ; even so 
by the righteousness of one, the free gift 
came upon all men unto justification of life. 
For as by one man's disobedience many were 
made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall 
many be made righteous." 

We have no satisfaction in multiplying these 
reproofs, though some of our remarks may appear 
unduly severe. But there is still a topic of some 
interest deserving a serious attention. 

For many years past, the subject of man's abil- 
ity and inability has been much discussed, both in 
the sacred desk and in other scenes of instruc- 
tion. Arguments on each side, almost equally 
plausible, and almost equally valid, are arrayed 
in mutual opposition. Still the debate continues ; 



19 



and still the minds of men remain either in anx- 
ious uncertainty, or in unreasonable confidence. 

The truth is, that questions on this subject are 
much less likely to be decided by philosophic rea- 
soning, than by common sense and the Bible. 

Still there are truths in the case, the force of 
which most candid minds will admit. That all 
human beings are under immediate and everlast- 
ing obligations to repent of their sins, to obey the 
law and receive the gospel — that there is no ob- 
stacle in the way, but such as arises from their 
own obstinacy and wickedness — and that their 
perdition, if they finally perish, will be of their 
own procuring ; these are unquestionable facts. 

It is equally unquestionable that sinners lie 
wholly at the mercy of God ; that he holds their 
salvation and perdition in his own sovereign hand ; 
and that all their efforts to save themselves will 
be utterly abortive, without divine and omnipo- 
tent aid. 

Between these two classes of propositions there 
may be seeming discrepancies. But they are 
only seeming. All truths are reconcilable with 
all other truths. What appears to our frail minds 
to be discordant, may be quite otherwise in the 
eye of an omniscient God. And we ourselves, in 
a future state, may see clear and satisfying light, 
where now we behold only impenetrable dark- 
ness. 

The propensity of the present day seems to be 
to magnify human power. Thoughts are sported 



20 



on this subject, obviously irreconcilable with 
Scripture and common sense. This is undoubt- 
edly a serious evil. For though these views 
seemingly tend to excite men to action, their 
real tendency is to lull them into sloth and 
security. Let a man believe that his salvation 
is fully, and in every sense, in his own power, 
and he will delay the disagreeable task to a more 
convenient season. He will become proud, self- 
sufficient, and careless. It is worth a serious 
inquiry, whether that recklessness as to religion 
and the soul, and even that laxity in principles 
and morals which so lamentably prevail in our 
day, are not attributable to extravagant views of 
human power and sufficiency. 

On the topic thus briefly discussed, there arise 
some reflections too important to be neglected or 
forgotten. The error in question respecting human 
ability was, in former times, inculcated by minis- 
ters of great seriousness and fidelity — men who, 
in their private speculations, cherished sound and 
scriptural views on many gospel subjects ; and 
who, in their public instructions, uttered many 
things suited to alarm the fears, and awaken the 
consciences, of the impenitent. But the case is 
otherwise now. The modern theology is super- 
ficial and unimpressive. It contains little which 
tends eitl^r to awaken the consciences, or alarm 
the fears of the irreligious. Of course, the error in 
question is left unqualified and unchecked, to pro- 
duce its disastrous effects on the minds of men, 
and lead them insensibly in the path to ruin. 



21 



Concerning many of the errors which we have 
noted, it may be thought, perhaps, that they arise 
less from substantial deviations, than from mere 
changes in terminology. But to this grave remark, 
we reply in brief, that words are things. A slight 
change of terms may communicate very false im- 
pressions. We have likewise a right to enter a 
solemn protest against a new, unauthorized and 
inaccurate use of language. It is not fit, that in 
this way, the instructions of the pulpit should be- 
come unintelligible, the minds of men filled with 
confusion, and the religious public kept in a state 
of unceasing agitation. 

But perhaps the case demands an attention and 
statement still more serious. Can it be for a mo- 
ment denied that, within a few years, words have 
so entirely changed their meaning, that the chris- 
tian pulpit emits darkness rather than light ? Can 
it be denied that the terms Depravity, Conversion, 
Regeneration, Atonement, Justification, etc., have 
lost their original sense, and assumed a meaning 
altogether new ? Can it be denied, that in the 
principal Theological Seminary of New England, 
the religion taught is depravity without sin, regen- 
eration without holiness, and justification without 
the righteousness of Christ? Can it be denied, 
that pious hearers often retire from the sanctuary, 
and from the instructions of a preacher whose 
leading views are entirely opposite to their own, 
yet honestly believing that they have heard the 
very gospel which they loved ? Can it be denied, 



22 



that different classes of hearers, widely distant in 
sentiment, have each come away in the confidence 
that the preacher was of their own opinion ? 

In these cases, charity would perhaps forbid us 
to suspect that the preacher has harbored a direct 
intention to deceive. Perhaps his aim has been 
to exhibit truths so modified and ornamented as 
that they shall neither displace the tasteful and 
philosophic, nor disgust the worldly, nor repel the 
open enemies of religion. But surely it cannot be 
sufficiently lamented, that the pious should be de- 
frauded of the food on which they feast and live, 
the consciences of sinners left undisturbed, the un- 
believing confirmed in their infidelity, and the 
hypocrite and self-deceived encouraged in their 
ruinous delusions. 

Where are the Christians who have occupied 
this stage for twenty or thirty years, and have not 
witnessed a real revolution in religion — in its doc- 
trinal views, its experience and its practice ? The 
wide and perceptible distance once existing be- 
tween the pious and the impenitent is almost an- 
nihilated. The irreligious are prone to imagine 
that they are half as good as Christians; the 
church, instead of communicating its stamp to the 
world, receives from the world its own stamp ; and 
the really pious are too often lost in the crowd. 

The decline and abandonment of the truth, so 
prevalent and undeniable, have unquestionably 
sunk our churches into a sadly depressed condi- 
tion. That lukewarmness, formality and awful 



23 



defections are found in thousands of professed 
Christians is generally admitted. The fact, too, 
appears to be generally lamented. It is one of 
the wonders of the time, that the close connection 
that exists between these two grand evils, seems 
to be rarely traced and acknowledged. Yet how 
can it be expected that evils will be removed until 
they are distinctly seen — seen in their causes and 
connection, as well as in their magnitude and ag- 
gravations ? Should it please God, in his holy 
sovereignty, to visit our community with the in- 
fluences of his Spirit, and with pure revivals of 
religion, one of its first effects would be found in 
a return to those simple gospel truths, which were 
once acknowledged and prized, but are now neg- 
lected and scarcely understood. Should it please 
him, on the other hand, to awaken a general and 
interested attention to these heaven-descended 
truths, this would prove an auspicious omen that 
religion itself would rise from its depressions, and 
richly diffuse around us its sacred And saving in- 
fluences. 

The worthy and respected Author of this pam- 
phlet has executed a task of no common impor- 
tance. He has presented to the churches a view 
of the Theology of New England as it now exists, 
together with the means and steps by which it 
has arrived at its present position. The whole 
work is marked with great care and accuracy of 
investigation, with great clearness of statement, 
and with a candor which is mingled with a de- 



24 



cided and warm attachment to the pure principles 
of gospel truth. In a work involving such exten- 
siveness of general survey, and such a minute 
statement of particulars, it would be strange in- 
deed, were there to be found no mistakes. In the 
present case, it is believed there are few, and those 
of small importance. 

Mr. Wallace has laid our New England 
churches under great obligations. These obliga- 
tions they will not be slow to acknowledge, or to 
appreciate. His pamphlet, it is anticipated, will 
excite a general attention. His statement will 
confirm the friends of truth, and will furnish mat- 
ter of useful reflection to inquirers and errorists. 

The writer of this Introduction is aware that, 
by his present and former communications to the 
public, he may incur the suspicion of severity to- 
wards his christian and ministerial brethren. But 
he pleads innocence. On this point, he can appeal 
to his own conscience, and he hopes also to his 
omniscient Judge. At no period has he felt more 
anxious to live and die in peace with every human 
being. Yet feeling that his final account is near, 
he is anxious to spend his last breath in defending 
the truth of God, and in opposing the errors which 
threaten its subversion. Conscious that he is 
liable to error, he knows that the same liability at- 
tends his valued brethren who differ from him in 
judgment. Nor is it impossible, that when he shall 
have retired from the stage, they may remember 
his warnings, with regret that they have not been 
regarded. 



25 



The Theology of New England is obviously in 
a state of transition. What is the point at which 
it will stop, is known only to Him who knows all 
things, and who loves his church with an affec- 
tion far superior to that of the best of its friends. 
One thing is certain. Our spiritual condition will 
soon become either materially better, or materially 
worse. At such a time, there are reasons enough 
for fear and trembling, for sleepless vigilance, and 
active exertion ; but none for despair, nor even for 
despondency. He who sways the sceptre of the 
world, sways likewise the sceptre of the Church. 
She cannot be swallowed and lost in the ocean, 
for her great Pilot is at the helm, Let Christians 
shake off their guilty slumbers ; let them stand in 
their lot; let them rouse every nerve and sinew to 
active exertion, and all will yet be well. " God is 

OUR REFUGE AND STRENGTH, A VERY PRESENT HELP 
IN TROUBLE." THEREFORE WILL NOT WE FEAR, 
THOUGH THE EARTH BE REMOVED, AND THOUGH THE 
MOUNTAINS BE CARRIED INTO THE MIDST OF THE 
SEA. 

DANIEL DANA. 



Newburyport) Nov. 19, 1855, 



THE THEOLOGY OF NEW ENGLAND, 



" The Theology of New England," say the Edi- 
tors of the Boston Congregationalist, " is not one 
simple, well-defined system. There has existed as 
great a variety among the New England divines, 
who are essentially orthodox, as among the divines 
of any other nation. 5 '* This fact renders it very 
difficult to point out, clearly and definitely, the 
principles commonly included under that term. 
There is no generally received creed, which em- 
braces and authoritatively exhibits this theology. 
We must look for it in works on divinity usually 
regarded as standard, in labored articles of re- 
views, newspaper editorials, decisions of councils, 
published sermons, confessions of faith, and such 
other quarters as we may obtain light on the prin- 
ciples actually received and taught in the New 
England churches. From such sources as these 



* March 15, 1850. The responsible editors of the 4l Congregationalist " at 
this date were Rev. E. Beecher, D. D., Rev. R. S. Storrs, D. D., and Rev. 
H. M. Dexter. The articles from which we quote were, it is believed, writ- 
Jen by the then senior editor, Dr. Beecher. 



27 



the material for the following pages has been 
drawn. The reader must determine for himself 
the degree of credit to be attached to the several 
witnesses whose testimony is here recorded. 

What the "Theology of New England" at 
present is, may be inferred, with some degree of 
correctness from the influences which operated in 
forming it. 

Hopkins, holding that all sin consists in selfish 
exercises, denying that there is in man any nature 
or tendency to sin that can be properly called sin- 
ful, exalting his doctrine of disinterested benevo- 
lence to being in general to the skies, rejecting 
the imputation of Adam's sin, teaching the doc- 
trines of the atonement and justification in a loose 
and unsatisfactory manner, as well as deviating 
from the old faith in other important particulars, 
exerted a wide-spread and powerful influence on 
the ministry and churches in succeeding genera- 
tions. Dr. Jonathan Edwards, who rejected the 
doctrine of imputation in all its branches, and 
who is regarded as the father of the new scheme 
of the atonement, which denied that Christ paid 
the debt his people owe to God, or died in their 
room and stead, or in any proper sense satisfied 
divine justice in their behalf, or secured any thing 
for them, or did any thing more than open up the 
way by which God can pardon and save sinners 
and still maintain the integrity of his government, 
and which claims that his death has the same fa- 
vorable aspect on all men, is regarded by many as 



28 



second only to his father. Long ago he was ad- 
mitted into the catalogue of New England saints. 
Emmons, the great apostle of the " Exercise 
Scheme," who taught that there is no such thing 
as original sin, that there is no disposition to sin 
antecedent to unholy exercises, that all sin con- 
sists in exercises, that Christ merited nothing for 
sinners, that Christ by his death only opened up 
the way by which God might save all men, or 
none, as he saw fit, that justification signifies par- 
don of sin — no more, no less — that eternal life is 
bestowed as the reward of the believer's own sin- 
cere obedience, and who rejected imputation in 
every sense of the term, claiming that the distinc- 
tion of Christ's obedience into active and passive 
is wholly unscriptural, instructed nearly a hundred 
students of theology, most of whom are now New 
England pastors, many of them occupying posi- 
tions of great influence. Emmons held views re- 
specting divine agency now accepted by few. 
These, however, are among his " aberrations in 
the direction of ultra Calvinism." Dr. Dwight, 
for many years President of Yale College, and 
Professor of Theology, while he taught fully and 
distinctly the old doctrine in relation to sin, de- 
pravity, and regeneration, nevertheless held views 
on imputation, the atonement, justification, and 
other subjects, nearly akin to those of Emmons, 
and palpably diverse from the theology of the 
Westminster standards. For a quarter of a cen- 
tury, Dr. Taylor and his colleagues, at New Ha- 



29 



ven, have been teaching that God could not pre- 
vent the entrance of sin into our system ; he could 
not govern the world, so as to have less sin and 
less misery in it ; he does the most and best he 
can to banish sin and bring in holiness ; men per- 
severe in sin in spite of all he can do to reclaim 
them ; he converts and saves as many souls as he 
can, and would willingly save all if he could ; 
there is no sinful nature antecedent to sinful acts 
or exercises ; sin is the free preference of the 
world and worldly good to the will and glory of 
God ; infants come into the world as free from sin 
as Adam; death no more proves sin in infants 
than in animals ; the imputation of Adam's sin is 
unreasonable and absurd ; regeneration is a change 
in the governing purpose of the mind ; it is a 
gradual, progressive work ; there is no change in 
the nature or disposition of the sinner antecedent 
to the exercise of right affections ; the sinner may 
so resist the grace of God as to render it impossi- 
ble for God to convert him ; the agency of the 
Spirit in regeneration is altogether persuasive ex- 
erted through the medium of truth or motives; 
self-love or desire of happiness, is the primary 
cause or reason of all acts of preference or choice 
which fix supremely on any object. According 
to the Congregationalist, " Dr. Taylor has, within 
the last twenty years, instructed a larger number 
of students in the department of doctrinal theology 
than any other theological teacher in New Eng- 
land. These students are now, to a very considera- 

3* 



30 



ble extent, the settled pastors in the churches of 
Massachusetts and Connecticut." "Besides, it is a 
well known fact, that a very large proportion of 
the pastors of New England who did not study 
theology under Dr. Taylor, hold essentially his 
views on the great and prominent doctrines of the 
gospel, and rank themselves as New School men."* 
Dr. Woods, for thirty-eight years Professor of 
Christian Theology at Andover, orthodox as he 
was, and Old School as he is now regarded, was 
understood to teach a system which might be con- 
sidered a compromise between old Calvinism and 
Hopkinsianism. For near a quarter of a century, 
those memorable sentences, in his " Letters to 
Unitarians," in which he declared that the ortho- 
dox in New England, cannot with good conscience 
subscribe to every expression the Assembly's Cate- 
chism contains in relation to the doctrine of origi- 
nal sin, and that they cannot admit that the sin- 
fulness of our natural fallen state consists in any 
measure in the guilt of Adam's first sin, remained 
unaltered as the record of his deliberate judgment.! 
It was not until advanced in life that he publicly 
announced his change of opinion in relation to 
the propriety of conforming to old school divines, 
in the use of theological terms. Throughout his 
entire connection with the Seminary, Professor 
Stuart, and during a part of it, Professor Park, 
were associated with him. Their influence, it 

* Aug. 2, 1£50. | Letters to Unitarians, p. 44, 1820. 



31 



may well be believed, did not, in any degree, rem- 
edy the deficiencies in his orthodoxy. Indeed, 
Dr. Dana complains that the instructions of Dr. 
Woods, because of opposing influences, had not 
been permitted to operate with full force on the 
minds of the students. There were collisions 
even in the pulpit of the Seminary.* 

Such were some of the influences that operated 
in forming the prevailing theology of New Eng- 
land. What then is it ? 

Dr. Enoch Pond, Professor in the Theological 
Seminary at Bangor, Maine, one of the most emi- 
nent of New England divines, speaking of the 
union between the old Calvinists and Hopkinsians, 
in founding the Seminary at Andover, and in 
other benevolent enterprises, says : — " As they had 
now become a united body, they needed some 
name or phrase by which their theology might be 
designated. It was not Calvinism or Hopkinsian- 
ism, in the sense in which these terms had been 
used for half a century, but the coalition, the run- 
ning together of both ; and it is just here that we 
find the origin of a phrase about which there is no 
little dispute at the present day — The New Eng- 
land Theology." 

Old Calvinism, though the prevailing theology 
in this section for the first one hundred and thirty 
years, could not, he argues, with any propriety be 
called New England theology, as it was not pecu- 

* Dana's Remonstrance, p. 7 



32 



liar to New England. Hopkinsianism, he farther 
claims, never prevailed to such an extent as to be 
entitled to the name of New England theology. 
"But when," he says, "the great body of the 
Hopkinsians and Calvinists came to unite their 
forces to sustain the same institutions and publica- 
tions, the result was a modified theology — neither 
old Calvinism, on the one hand, nor High Hop- 
kinsianism on the other — which began to be 
called New England theology, and has been so 
designated ever since." " As the two classes which 
united in 1808, did not become perfectly one in 
sentiment, so the theology which they inculcated 
admitted of some diversity of statement and ex- 
planation. Still they were agreed in almost all 
important points, and wherein they differed they 
were pledged to mutual toleration. They unitedly 
held what have ever been considered the promi- 
nent points of Calvinism: such as the universal 
and unconditional purposes of God ; the free 
moral agency of man ; the entire sinfulness of the 
natural heart, in consequence of the original apos- , 
tacy ; the necessity of regeneration by the Spirit ; 
justification by faith ; redemption by the blood of 
Christ; the perseverance of saints unto eternal 
life; and the endless punishment of those who die 
in their sins. If these are Calvinistic doctrines, 
some of them peculiarly so, the New England 
theology is Calvinistic, and our ministers may 
with propriety be denominated Calvinists, still, 
they are not Calvinists in the exact sense of the 



33 



New England fathers a hundred years ago." No- 
ticing a few particulars in which the current the- 
ology of New England differs from the Calvinism 
of a former age, he mentions the imputation of 
Adam's sin, inability, directions to the uncon- 
verted, regeneration, and the atonement. He says, 
moreover, that New England divines are not 
agreed among themselves, but differ as to the na- 
ture of sin, our connection with Adam, regenera- 
tion, and kindred doctrines. These differences, he 
claims, are found among the soundest and most 
orthodox theologians, and therefore ought to be 
no bar to union and cooperation. Such are the 
views of this theology held by one of its ablest 
and most sober-minded advocates.* 

Professor Park, of Andover, is, however, the 
most devoted admirer, as well as the ablest ex- 
pounder of this system. His statements have, 
therefore, peculiar authority. In the closing article 
of his late controversy with Professor Hodge, of 
Princeton, he thus writes : — " We beg leave, there- 
fore, first of all, to explain the term New England 
theology. It signifies the formal creed which a 
majority of the most eminent theologians in New 
England have explicitly or implicitly sanctioned, 
during and since the time of Edwards. It in- 
cludes not the peculiarities in which Edwards 
differed, as he is known to have differed from the 
larger part of his most eminent followers, nor the 

* Sketch of the Theological Hist, of New England. Boston Cong., Nos.7and8. 



34 



peculiarities in which any one of his followers 
differed, as some of them did, from the larger part 
of the others ; but it comprehends the principles, 
with their logical sequences, which the greater 
number of our most celebrated divines have ap- 
proved expressly, or by implication. It was first 
called New-light Divinity, then New Divinity, 
afterward Edwardean, more recently Hopkinto- 
nian or Hopkinsian. From the fact that Edwards, 
Hopkins, West, and Catlin, resided in Berkshire 
county, it was once called Berkshire divinity. 
When it was embraced by Andrew Fuller, Dr. 
Ryland, Robert Hall, SutclifFe, Carey, Jay, and 
Erskine, it was called American theology by the 
English, in order to discriminate it from the Euro- 
pean systems.* It has been denominated New 
England theology, in order to distinguish it from 
the systems that have prevailed in other parts of 
the land. In 1756, two years before the death of 
Edwards, there were, according to Dr. Hopkins, 
not more than four or five clergymen who espous- 
ed this new theology. In 1773, it was advocated 
by about forty -five ministers ; and Dr. Hopkins 
says that in 1796 it was favored by somewhat 
more than a hundred. In 1787, Dr. Stiles men- 



*In relation to the above assertion, an eminent old school Professor of The- 
ology uses the following language : M Professor Park's assertion, that Hopkin- 
sianism was embraced by Fuller, Ryland, Hall, Erskine, etc., is so unfound- 
ed, and can be proved to be so by the writings of the persons named, that I am 
surprised at its rashness. The distinction between moral and natural ability — 
which, however, is far older than Edwards— and the unlimited extent, or 
rather the boundless efficacy of the Atonement, are the only ideas which they 
derive from New England." 



35 



tions as among its champions the two Edwardses, 
Bellamy, Hopkins, Trumbull, Smalley, Judson, 
Spring, Robinson, Strong, Dvvight, Emmons. In 
1799 Hopkins appended the names of West, Levi 
Hart, Backus, Presidents Balch and Fitch. "We 
may now add such honored men *as Dr. Catlin, 
President Appleton, Dr. Austin. They gave form 
and pressure to our theological system. They 
were imperfect men. They did not harmonize on 
every theme ; but a decided majority of them 
stood firm for the three radical principles, that sin 
consists in choice, that our natural power equals, 
and that it limits our duty." 

Characterizing this system particularly, he says : 
" It is marked by certain new features." He does 
not specify them, but says in general: " We do 
not mean to say that the Edwardean school dis- 
covered principles that were never thought of be- 
fore. They claim to have brought out into bold 
relief the obscurer faith of good men in all ages. 
They gave a new distinctness, a new prominence 
to doctrines which had been more vaguely be- 
lieved by the church. They produced new argu- 
ments for a faith which had been speculatively 
opposed by men who had practically sanctioned 
it." As an example, he mentions the doctrine 
that "an entirely depraved man has a natural 
power to do all that is required of him," claiming 
"that it has been so clearly unfolded by New 
England divines that it properly belongs to their 
distinctive system." He further maintains that 



36 



" New England theology is Calvinism in an im- 
proved form." " It does not profess to be original 
in its cardinal truths. It has ever claimed that 
they are the common faith of the church ; that 
they are recognised in many evangelical creeds ; 
that Calvinism contains the substance of New 
England theology, not always well-proportioned, 
not seldom intermingled with the remnants of an 
erring scholasticism, and sometimes enveloped in 
inconsistencies, and expressed in a nervous style. 
The substance of our theology is Calvinistic : 
here it is old. Much of its self-consistency is Ed- 
wardean and Hopkinsian ; here it is new. It is 
not mere Calvinism, but it is consistent Calvin- 
ism. It is a revised and corrected edition of the 
Genevan creed." As specimens of the crooked 
parts of Calvinism that New England divines 
have straightened out, he mentions the agency of 
God in producing sin, and the nature of necessity. 
" Strong, practical common sense," he says, " is 
another characteristic of the New England divin- 
ity." This feature he illustrates by a reference to 
its theory concerning the nature of moral evil, af- 
firming that all sin consists in sinful acts, or exer- 
cises, and denying that there is any antecedent 
sinful nature. In his remarks on this topic it is a 
noticeable fact, that Prof. Park has the hardihood 
to claim Pres. Edwards and Dr. Dwight as hold- 
ing this theory. Does the learned Professor sup- 
pose that his readers are not capable of compre- 
hending for themselves the plainest and most di- 



37 



rect statements of these divines? In the next 
place, he characterizes " New Englaud theology as 
a comprehensive system of biblical science." " It 
unites a high, but not an ultra Calvinism, on the 
decrees and agency of God, with a philosophical, 
but not an Arminian theory, on the freedom and 
worth of the human soul." " When its opposers 
think of its efforts to justify the ways of God to 
man, they hastily accuse it of Arminianism ; and 
when they turn their minds to its descriptions of 
the supreme, universal Governor, they hastily ac- 
cuse it of hyper- Calvinism." In the last place, he 
claims that " it is the only system of speculative 
orthodoxy that can endure examination, and there- 
fore destined to prevail." " It is a system which 
will bear to be looked at, and is not a theology of 
mere ( dissolving views.' The science of the world 
is in favor of it. The moral instincts of the race 
are in favor of it. The common sense of common 
men is in favor of it. They can be kept back 
from it only by the incessant roll of a polemic 
drum, which alarms them by its discordant sounds." 
This synopsis of Prof. Park's article will show the 
light in which this system is regarded by its great 
champion. A shade of difference will be observed 
between him and Prof. Pond.* 

Still another eminent divine has undertaken to 
interpret the phrase " New England theology." 
We refer to Dr. Woods. A short time before his 

* Bibliotheca Sacra, January, 1352. 
4 



38 



death he published a pamphlet, in which he main- 
tained that the theology of New England is sim- 
ply that of the Shorter Catechism — nothing more 
— nothing less — nothing different. All who swerve 
from it, he maintains, swerve from the true New 
England theology. He is, however, compelled to 
admit that among those who would be numbered 
with orthodox ministers, there are individuals who 
entertain opinions obviously at variance with 
what he calls the settled theology of the Puritans. 
These erroneous doctrines are, that the purpose of 
God to save sinners rests wholly on his foreknowl- 
edge of their repentance, faith, and obedience — 
that Adam's posterity begin their existence, as he 
did, free from moral corruption or any sinful pro- 
pensity — that God was not able to exclude sin 
from a world of free moral agents, however much 
he may have desired it — that when God has fa- 
vored sinners with the privileges of the gospel and 
the strivings of the Spirit, he has done all he can 
for their conversion — that the new birth consists 
in a right exercise of free agency — that Christ did 
not die in place of sinners, but merely made an 
affecting demonstration of God's readiness to save 
sinners, etc. These opinions he looked upon as 
exceptions to the common belief. He was per- 
suaded that the great body of Congregational 
ministers and churches are sound in the faith.* 
Here, however, the editors of the Congregation- 

* Theology of the Puritans, pp. 39-42. 



39 



alist joined issue with the doctor, and maintained 
that the prevalent theology of New England is 
not in all respects that of the Catechism, but 
something very different* Prof. Pond, while he 
admits that Old School Calvinism was the pre- 
vailing theology in New England for the first one 
hundred and thirty years, insists that since that 
time it has come to be something different! The 
editors of the Panoplist — a periodical started in 
Boston, January, 1850, for the express purpose of 
counteracting the erroneous influences abroad, but 
which, after a sickly existence of not quite three 
years, was discontinued for want of support, say: 
" We think the charity of Dr. Woods has led 
him to a more hopeful view of the state of the 
orthodox faith than the facts will warrant We 
have no doubt the defection, both in Puritan 
habits and doctrine, is far more extensive than is 
generally believed, or even suspected.''^ High 
authorities among both new and old school men, 
it will thus be seen, differ from Dr. Woods, in 
their estimate of New England theology. Men, 
however, whose judgment is worthy of very high 
respect substantially agree with him, as will ap- 
pear in the sequel. 

The editors of the Panoplist, in their introduc- 
tory address, give a more formal expression of 
their estimate of the new theology. They repre- 



* Congregationalist for 1850 and 1851. 

f Sketches of the Theological History of New England, Nos. 7 and 8. 

% Panoplist, Vol. Ill, p. 104. 



40 



sent it as having carried away " a great 'portion of 
the Congregational churches." Styling it a " spe- 
cies of rationalism," they use the following lan- 
guage : — " "We have said it is dangerous in the 
last degree. But we have not been beating the 
air, telling a story of a chimera, or some frightful 
object which every body has heard of but nobody 
seen. We speak of it as something which exists, 
which exists among us, which is fast spreading 
itself among our churches. We speak what we 
know, and testify of something which we have 
seen. We know that it has long shown its in- 
fluence in our colleges, that it characterises the 
discussions in our theological seminaries and the 
discourses of the pulpit : we know that it is rapid- 
ly extending itself, and threatens a very general 
defection from the faith of our fathers." Let it be 
observed that reference is here made to the inroad 
of principles different from, and what we would 
call still rtiore erroneous than the New England 
orthodoxy of a quarter of a century ago.* 

Prof. Hodge of Princeton, in the concluding ar- 
ticle of his controversy with Prof. Park, has given 
us a glimpse of what he regards as New England 
theology. His views are exhibited in the follow- 
ing extract. It will be seen that he agrees very 
nearly with Dr. Woods : — " There is another fea- 
ture in Prof. Park's mode of conducting this dis- 
cussion, which is very little to our taste. He con- 

*Panoplist, Vol. I, p. 9. 



41 



stantly endeavors to represent us as assailing New 
England theology. This is a ruse de^guerre every 
way unworthy of a candid disputant. We stated, 
as the three radical principles of the Anti-Agus- 
tinian system — ' First, all sin consists in sinning ; 
that there can be no moral character but in moral 
acts ; secondly, that the power to the contrary is 
essential to free agency ; that a free agent may 
always act contrary to any influence, not destruc- 
tive of his freedom, that may be brought to bear 
upon him ; thirdly, that ability limits responsibil- 
ity ; that men are responsible only so far as they 
have adequate power to do what is required of 
them, or that they are responsible for nothing not 
under the control of the will.' If there is one 
characteristic of New England theology more 
prominent than any other, it is opposition to these 
principles. The world-wide fame of President 
Edwards, as a theologian, rests mainly on his 
thorough refutation of them. In this opposition, 
Bellamy, Dwight, and the other great men of 
New England, were no less strenuous than Ed- 
wards. The aberration of the advocates of the 
i Exercise Scheme,' though it led them to a denial 
of at least the first of the above principles, was in 
the direction of ultra Calvinism. It was not until 
the rise of what is popularly called New Haven- 
ism, that those principles were rejected by any 
other class of New England divines reputed or- 
thodox. It is Prof. Park and not we who is the 
assailant of New England theology, a fact which 



42 



he will not be able to conceal. We recently- 
heard of a certain Unitarian gentleman who seem- 
ed honestly to believe that Trinitarianism is dying 
out in this country. It is possible that a similar 
hallucination may lead Prof. Park to regard the 
little coterie to which he belongs as all New Eng- 
land."* Such is the estimate of the great living 
champion of the old school theology. 

After the controversy between Prof. Park of 
Andover, and Prof. Hodge of Princeton, closed, in 
1852, Dr. Lord, President of Dartmouth College, 
published a letter to Dr. Dana of Newburyport. 
In it he thus speaks of the theology of New Eng- 
land : — " Prof. Hodge, Dr. Woods, and others, of 
the Edwardean school in New England, have 
good hopes. They imagine that Calvinism is 
still ascendant among the churches of the fathers. 
But I fear they err. I fear that Prof. Park judges 
truly that the current of theological opinion is 
running in the 'new' channels. I fear he would 
be found, if occasion should serve, in the centre 
of a larger • coterie ' than these good men imagine. 
For it is true that the Assembly's Catechism has 
mostly ceased from the families, schools, and churches 
of New England. It is true that wanton hands 
have marred that venerable digest itself and few 
care to wipe the infamy away. It is true that we 
are altering our confessions and covenants, our 
psalms and hymns, and our style of worship in gen- 

♦Princeton Review, Vol. XXIII, p. 693-4. 



43 



eral, to suit a more highly illuminated state of the 
public mind. Unequivocal signs exist that a great 
change is coming over New England. And there 
is plenary evidence that this change is referable to 
a period when our theology was diverted into a 
speculative channel, when its learned teachers be- 
gan to light their torch at the altar of the imagi- 
native reason, and, in their circuits after divine 
knowledge, went up to Alexandria and Athens, 
rather than to Jerusalem."* 

After showing, at considerable length, that the 
theology of New England was the theology set 
forth in the Catechism, he uses the following lan- 
guage : — " The Professor, if he pleases, in his 
commendable, though misdirected zeal of knowl- 
edge, may cull the flowers of the patristic meta- 
physics, and distil them in his well furnished 
laboratory at Andover. He may digest these es- 
sences, if he will, in his concentrated eclectic sol- 
vent. He may give out the compound, if he will, 
as a panacea for the moral and theological dis- 
eases of the age, and multiply certificates of its 
healing power over the catholicons that have gone 
before it ; but let it not be labelled ' New England 
theology. 5 That endures no counterfeit. It has a 
regular Puritan image and superscription, unique, 
intelligible and unmistakeable, to the end of time. 
A spurious article may supplant it, and have its 
run till overtaken by some more sublimated spe- 

* Letter, p. 27. 



44 



cific. But it cannot be long mistaken for the gen- 
uine. "We have seen many attempts to give cur- 
rency to the false by the alleged authority of ven- 
erated names. But they have always failed. 
Whoever calls Taylorism New England theology 
now ; or imagines that it could have sprung from 
the heart of Edwards, or even from his head, ex- 
cept in sleep ? The modern digests of the ancient 
incoherent and equivocal speculations, may, in- 
deed, become New England theology, if it is right 
to call them by that sacred name. I fear they 
will ; for the majority would rather be killed by 
nostrums, than cured by the regular physicians. 
Such has ever been the history of sophistry and 
unbelief, and we have no right to expect exemp- 
tion from a universal law. But these specifics 
can never be New England theology — as it was. 
They can never stand the reaction of the Assem- 
bly's Catechism, or the Statutes at Andover. 
God be thanked ! ¥/e have made sure of some- 
thing in New England. The Puritans did not 
bleed and die for a chimera."* 

Thus writes an eminent divine who occupies a 
place on one of New England's watch towers. 
His testimony is worthy of special attention. 

The next witness, whose testimony we would 
add to the foregoing, is from a different class — 
embracing but very few individuals, yet well 
qualified to testify in such a case — New England 

* Letter, p. 33-4. 



45 



Presbyterians. On fast day, 1848, Rev. W. W. 
Eells, pastor of the Second Presbyterian Church 
in Newburyport, in connection with the General 
Assembly, himself a New England man, perfectly 
familiar with the prevalent theology, preached two 
sermons, specially intended to point out the defec- 
tions of the descendants of the Puritans from the 
faith and practice of their fathers. These sermons 
were afterwards published. T.he author talks 
plainly — bluntly, indeed. Take the following ex- 
tracts, as exhibiting his estimate of New England 
theology : — " Notwithsanding the cry of Puritan 
theology from pulpits, and tracts, and pamphlets, 
and newspapers, and more aspiring periodicals, it 
is evident from our practice, that there is very little 
of true Puritan theology amongst us." " It is an 
undeniable fact, that very little doctrinal preaching 
of any kind is found in the pulpits of the present 
day, in this land of the Puritans. A sickly senti- 
mentalism — a morality scarcely more refined than 
that of Plato — the discussion of abstract topics of 
speculation — the advocacy of some scheme of real 
benevolence, or of the multitude, whose name is 
legion, of counterfeit schemes of good — or, at most, 
the indefinite and indirect preaching about the 
gospel, the delicate and distant allusion to some 
of the plainer first principles of truth — this is the 
provision now too generally set before the sons of 
those who desired to be fed, and were fed, and 
sustained, and strengthened on the strong meat of 
the gospel of grace. This is a truth — an awful 



46 



truth. And many an humble Christian has mourn- 
ed over it when he has gone to the sanctuary and 
found no Savior there ; and out of a heart bur- 
dened with grief, has groaned with Mary — c They 
have taken away my Lord, and I know not where 
they have laid him.' " " The popular theology of 
the day — that which is held to an alarming ex- 
tent, and is increasing, almost unrebuked, and 
which bids fair soon to be universal — is a direct 
contradiction, in every important point, to the the- 
ology and doctrine of our fathers." " The adher- 
ents of this new system of antiquated error and 
falsehood, commence their work by sinking away 
this foundation stone," (the doctrine of original 
sin.) "Sin," they say, "is voluntary action in 
view of known law. Sin is altogether action. 
The very idea of a sinful disposition, a depraved 
nature, a sinful propensity, is scouted and ridicul- 
ed as an absurdity." " The representative charac- 
ter of Adam, as well as any imputation of his sin, 
or any thing like inherent sinfulness or hereditary 
depravity, is utterly denied and derided." " I but 
echo the cry of these new system-mongers when I 
say that this doctrine of atonement, and this doc- 
trine of justification," (that taught in the Confes- 
sion and Catechisms,) " are almost wholly un- 
known among the descendants of the Puritans in 
this land of their prayers. And not only so, but 
men in high places in the church seem to find a 
malignant pleasure, first in caricaturing these doc- 
trines, and then in holding them up to derision 



47 



and contempt." After describing the doctrine of 
the Confession as to the application of redemp- 
tion, he goes on to say : — " But all this glorious 
truth is a fable, and a dream, to these wise men- 
wise in old folly." "Regeneration is a change 
from sinful action to holy action. And this man, 
who is thus to change, is not dead in sins. He is 
as fully able to keep all the law of God as Adam 
was." " All the work of the Spirit is reduced to 
mere persuasion, to the application of motives to 
the will of man. He may bring the truth home 
with power upon the understanding, but he can- 
not change the heart." Mr. Eells closes up this 
discussion with the following energetic language : 
" Here I will pause, not that the catalogue of 
falsehood and of folly is exhausted, but that 
enough has been said to show that all the founda- 
tions of Puritan theology are overthrown by those 
who vainly boast that the Puritans are their 
fathers. These are the doctrines that are taught 
by professors of theology, that are preached from 
the pulpit in this land of the pilgrims. And the 
evil is wide-spread, and is fast extending itself. 
This is an undeniable truth." Thus a New 
England Presbyterian characterizes the prevalent 
theology. 

The author of the " Andover Fuss " — a pam- 
phlet published in 1853, in review of Dr. Dana's 
remonstrance, we would bring forward as another 
witness. The pamphlet, though anonymous, yet 
bears marks of being " by authority." Speaking 



48 



of the efforts of the few genuine Old School men 
in this region, the writer says : — " They have com- 
passed sea and land to proselyte New England to 
a faith which it abhors, and which it shook off as 
offensive to the first principles of justice and the 
most rooted convictions of common sense. Those 
cast-off errors, for which the orthodox would not be 
held responsible, it requires no gift of prophecy to 
foretell, will never regain their ascendancy over New 
England, or ever come out, barefaced, in many, if in 
any of her churches ; the Westminster doctrine of 
original sin will never come back to the region from 
which it has been so decisively and considerately 
cast out. We only wonder that men of so much 
wisdom should be men of so much folly. If the 
triple force of cunning, secrecy, and combination, 
could insure success, theirs would not be doubtful. 
What arts have been spared to deluge the ortho- 
dox churches of New England with a scholastic 
catechism, which it is hard to understand, and still 
harder to believe ? What manoeuvres have been 
wanting to lay hold of every religious press, and 
turn its weeklies and quarterlies up the channel of 
time ? What subtle scheming and patient assi- 
duity have not attested the fond desire and fixed 
intent to overturn the platform of Congregational- 
ism, and foist into its place a system of disguised, 
but rank Presbyterianism ? What inventions 
have not been plied to coerce the elder theological 
seminaries in New England to caress a doctrine, 
which, in 1820, was branded by Dr. Woods as a 



49 



fugitive and a vagabond, or else to direct theolog- 
ical students to a seminary that was an Ishmaelite 
from its conception. What secret correspondence 
has not been carried on to extend over New Eng- 
land an ultraism of orthodoxy, which that region 
had lost sight of? "What espionage has not leered 
at a freedom of thought that ranged over a field 
broader than the dogmas of Westminster, or in- 
dulged in a moral sentiment at variance tvith its 
obsolete and preposterous doctrine of original sin ? 
What vigilance has not been on the look out for 
vacant pulpits, agencies, and offices of honor and 
influence in seminaries of learning, to manage 
into them candidates of stockstill fixedness in an 
effete creed, and to fly-blow such as ventured a 
step out of the magic circle of the Westminster 
faith ?" 

Desiring to throw light from every quarter on 
this subject we present two more extracts. An 
article in the Boston Congregation alist of Aug. 2d, 
1850, understood to be from the pen of Dr. Ed- 
ward Beecher, who twenty years ago was regarded 
as a " strenuous advocate of Taylorism," contains 
the following language : — " We should like to 
know, however, what is to be allowed hereafter to 
pass for orthodoxy in Massachusetts and Connec- 
ticut. Within the last twenty years Dr. Taylor 
has, we suppose, instructed a larger number of 
students in the department of doctrinal theology 
than any other theological teacher in New Eng- 
land. These students are How, to a considerable 

5 



50 



extent, the settled pastors in the churches of Mas- 
sachusetts and Connecticut. . . . But besides, it 
is a well-known fact, that a very large proportion 
of the pastors of New England who did not study 
theology under Dr. Taylor, hold essentially his 
views on the great and prominent doctrines of the 
gospel, and rank themselves as New School men. 
These views were entertained by multitudes long 
before Dr. Taylor's day. We have been interested 
of late in noticing how this matter works. Our 
delegate to the Old School General Assembly is 
very happy to inform that venerable body that the 
orthodoxy of Massachusetts was never in a more 
healthy, vigorous, and prosperous state. True, un- 
questionably. But if nothing is to be reckoned as 
orthodoxy in Massachusetts but Old School Calvin- 
ism, the delegate ought not to have made any 
such report. He ought frankly to have told that 
body that Massachusetts' orthodoxy was sadly on 
the decline. It seems to us, our Old School 
friends, when they make a summing up of the con- 
dition of orthodoxy, are very glad to reckon in all 
the New School men, because they would make 
rather a meagre show without us ; but in other 
circumstances they magisterially talk about our 
having embraced < some form of rationalism.' " 

The last general estimate of the Theology of 
New England, which we would present, is that 
made by Rev. William T. Dwight, D. D., of Port- 
land., Maine, in a discourse delivered in Boston 
before the " Congregartional Board of Publication," 



51 



May 30, 1855. His theme was " Characteristics 
of New England Theology." He described it as 
independent, steadily progressive, truly scriptural, 
and as having formed the New England character. 
Speaking of it as scriptural he uses the following 
language : 

" When we would thus describe the theology of 
New England, we intend that it is more scriptural 
than the Apostle's Creed, or than the Nicene 
Creed ; than the theology of Luther and Melanc- 
thon, of Knapp and Tholuck and Hengstenberg; 
than the theology of Leighton, of Butler, and Ma- 
gee, or than the piebald theology of Coleridge ; 
than that of Symington and Chalmers; or than 
that of Calvin and Turretin. Or, if such compari- 
sons are thought to savor of presumption, it is in- 
tended that this theology would peculiarly har- 
monize with such a system of divine truth as the 
great Apostle to the Gentiles would have prepared 
soon after completing his Epistle to the Romans, 
had he been then led to undertake such a work, 
and without the immediate .guidance of inspira- 
tion in its execution." 

In presenting these testimonies, we have had no 
pre-conceived theory of our own to make good. 
Our aim has been simply to throw light on the 
subject from all quarters, to aid the reader in form- 
ing a correct estimate of the real facts. 

We now proceed to point out the views of the 
great facts in the plan of salvation prevalent in 
the Puritan churches of New England. At the 



52 



Synod, met in Boston, A. D. 1680, composed of 
ministers and messengers from all the New Eng- 
land churches, according to Cotton Mather, " the 
Confession of Faith, consented to by the Congre- 
gational churches of England in a synod met at 
the Savoy — which, excepting a few variations, 
was the same with what was agreed by the Rev- 
erend Assembly at Westminster, and afterwards 
by the General Assembly of Scotland — was twice 
publicly read, examined, and approved, and some 
small variations made from that of the Savoy, in 
compliance with that of the Westminster, and 
so, after such collations, but no contentions, voted 
and printed as the faith of New England."* We 
have examined this Confession with care. As far 
as its exhibition of the plan of redemption is con- 
cerned, it corresponds in every particular with 
that of the Westminster divines. In the most im- 
portant chapters, there is not even a verbal differ- 
ence. Such was the standard of ancient ortho- 
doxy in New England. We shall aim, in the se- 
quel, to point out whatever important departures 
from it have taken place. We shall be careful to 
set down as true only well established facts. 

Orthodox Congregationalists are usually spoken 
of as divided into Old and New School. The po- 
sition of these parties is clearly stated in the fol- 
lowing extract from the "Boston Congregation- 
alist," of September 13, 1850 :— " Those who con- 

* Magnolia, Vol. II : p. 156. 



53 



sistently hold and unfold the views of Edwards, 
in his treatise ' on Virtue,' are New School divines, 
though their more proper name is New England 
divines. Those who repudiate these as false and 
dangerous, are Old School." In answer to the 
question, Who are to be ranked among the Old 
School ? the writer says : — " The Princeton di- 
vines, the editors of the modern Panoplist, and all 
who with them wish to revolutionize the theology 
of New England." . Again, in answer to the in- 
quiry, Would he include the Calvinists of New 
England, as distinguished from the Hopkinsians, 
among the Old School ? he says : — " By no means. 
They are separated by an impassable gulf from 
Old School Princeton divines. For what the 
Princetonians abhor and renounce as the source 
and fountain of all evil, the old Calvinists of New 
England have eminently honored as the truth of 
God." It is well to remember, that in the judg- 
ment of the editors of the Congregationalist, 
those divines in New England known as " Old 
Calvinists," are separated in sentiment by an im- 
passable gulf from the Princeton divines. Even 
among the New School or New England divines, 
as the Congregationalist prefers to style them, 
there is a well-defined line of division. Of these, 
one class is sometimes called Old School, and the 
other New. The former is, in their judgment, but 
a " meagre party." In the sequel the theology of 
these parties will be carefully distinguished. 

5* 



54 



I. Inspiration of the Scriptures. 

Among those who claim to be included within 
the pale of orthodoxy, are some — how many we 
have no means of knowing — who reject, or at 
least practically deny, the commonly received doc- 
trine of inspiration. Dr. Woods, who is. very so- 
licitous to vindicate the orthodoxy of the ortho- 
dox, is compelled to acknowledge " that lax opin- 
ions are occasionally put forth as to the inspira- 
tion of the Scriptures." He goes on to say : — 
" Some ministers, who wish to be called orthodox, 
show more confidence in their own reason than in 
the holy Scriptures. They set aside, or new-model 
those teachings of revelation which transcend their 
own intellectual powers, and which require them 
to submit their understanding to the absolute au- 
thority of the Word of God."* If the writer is 
not misinformed, at least one instance has occur- 
red of a council ordaining and installing a man, 
who, when examined, avowed his disbelief of the 
plenary inspiration of the Scriptures. These views 
must, however, be regarded as exceptional to those 
generally prevalent. 

II. Election. 

On this subject " The Confession of Faith " 
teaches that " Those of mankind who are predes- 

* Theology of the Puritans, p. 42. 



55 



tinated unto life, God hath chosen in Christ unto 
everlasting glory, out of his mere free grace and 
love, without any foresight of faith or good works, 
or perseverance in either of them, or any thing in 
the creature as conditions or causes moving him 
thereunto." It also affirms that the " means are 
foreordained," and that " all the elect are effect- 
ually called unto faith by the Spirit, justified, 
adopted, sanctified, and kept through faith unto 
salvation."* This is the doctrine of all who have 
any claim to be regarded as Calvinists. Dr. 
"Woods, however, acknowledges that there are 
among those who claim to be regarded as ortho- 
dox, some who hold the " Arminian view of the 
doctrine of election, namely, that the purpose of 
God to save sinners rests wholly upon his fore- 
knowledge of their repentance, faith, and obe- 
dience." How many hold these views it is diffi- 
cult to ascertain. It is, however, believed to be a 
fact that " orthodox " ministers very generally, if 
not universally, exchange, on equal terms, with 
avowed Arminians. It is also believed to be a 
fact, that there is little, or no appreciable differ- 
ence, as to the principles they ordinarily preach. 
Yet the formal creed of the mass of " orthodox " 
ministers is doubtless Calvinistic, as contradistin- 
guished from Arminianism. 

* Confession of Faith, Chap. Ill, Sec. 5 and 6. 



56 



III. AdawDs Relation to his Posterity. 

On this subject the doctrine of the Westmin- 
ster standards is, that " our first parents being the 
root of all mankind, the guilt of their first sin was 
imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted 
nature conveyed to all their posterity descending 
from thern by ordinary generation."* — " The cove- 
nant being made with Adam as a public person, 
not for himself but for his posterity, all mankind 
descending from him * * * sinned in him and fell 
with him in that first transgression."! — " The sin- 
fulness of that estate whereinto man fell consist- 
ed," they say among other things, " in the guilt 
of Adam's first sin." J — " We are by nature chil- 
dren of wrath, and justly liable to all punishments 
in this world and in that which is to come."| 
There are some among the orthodox who hold 
this doctrine. Among these, Dr. Woods, during 
the last years of his life at least, claimed to be 
numbered. In his lectures, as published, he vin- 
dicates what he understood to be the Westmin- 
ster doctrine on this subject, as well as the pro- 
priety of using the phraseology employed in those 
standards. There is good reason to believe, how- 
ever, that this is not the prevalent doctrine in 
New England. Dr. Woods, in his Letters to Uni- 
tarians, declared : — " The imputation of Adatrfs sin 



* Confession of Faith, Chap. VI, Sec. 3. t L. Cat. Q. 23. J L. Cat. Q. 25. 

U L. Cat. Q. 27. 



57 



to his posterity, in any sense which those words 
naturally and properly convey, is a doctrine which 
ice do not believe* The editors of the Congrega- 
tionalist bear testimony to the correctness of this 
statement. They say, speaking of the above ex- 
tract and its context — " It admirably sets forth the 
true position of New England divines."! The 
Doctrinal Book and Tract Society — an associa- 
tion organized for the express purpose of dissemi- 
nating what its members regard as the truth, and 
in which all parties are united, in No. 2 of its Se- 
ries of Tracts, says : — " Sin, as well as holiness, is 
strictly personal, and cannot be transferred from 
one to another. By this it is meant, that no sinful 
act of one person can ever become the sinful act 
of another person. Although fallen Adam's pos- 
terity are constituted sinners by means of their 
connection with him as their public head, yet his 
sin is not their sin. God declares — l The soul that 
sinneth, it shall die ;' and, in connection with this, 
he teaches that no person shall bear the iniquity 
of another, but only his own ; that no person shall 
be punished for the sin of another, but only for his 
own sin. Thus, it appears, that in consequence 
of the first offence of the first man, all his de- 
scendants have become sinners.":}: 

This language is introduced in such a connec- 
tion that there is no doubt but that it was intend- 
ed to state what is regarded as the truth in oppo- 

* p. 44. t June 22, 1S49. $ p. 1 and 2. 



58 



sition to the ancient doctrine. Prof. Pond, after 
describing the old theology on this subject says : — 
" I think there are few clergymen in New England 
now, who would explain the connection of our sin 
with that of Adam in this way."* Professor Park's 
theory has no place for this doctrine : indeed it 
seems to be absolutely inconsistent with it. Prof. 
Stuart, with much learning and ingenuity com- 
bated the doctrines of Adam's Federal Headship 
and the imputation of his sin. He teaches "that 
all of Adam's posterity are affected by his offence, 
and have sustained great losses thereby, and are 
subjected to many evils." " But this," he claims, 
"is something very different from proper punish- 
ment The fall of Adam brought our race into a 
new state of probation. The whole race are now 
heirs by nature of a frail and dying condition ; 
they are no longer in that state in which they are 
inclined to holiness. And this comes on all with- 
out any concurrence of their own. But this may 
still be regarded in another light than that of sim- 
ple punishment. It is trial : it is discipline : it is 
probation sui generis?^ The Old School doc- 
trine, Dr. Taylor rejected with indignation. " To 
believe this," he exclaims, " I must renounce the 
reason God has given me ; I must believe it also 
in the face of the oath of God to its falsehood 
entered on the record.''^ Dr. Dwight does not 
teach Adam's federal headship ; he argues that 

* Sketches of N. E. Theology, No. 8. f Stuart on the Romans, p. 595. 
X Concio ad clerura. 



59 



the posterity of Adam are neither guilty of his 
transgression nor punished for it: the simple pro- 
position, "that in consequence of the apostacy of 
Adam all men have sinned," embodies his whole 
doctrine on the subject.* Emmons and Hopkins 
both discarded the Westminster doctrine. This is 
well known. It may therefore be affirmed with 
all confidence, that the doctrine of Adam's federal 
headship and the imputation of his sin, is not a 
doctrine of the theology prevailing in New Eng- 
land. Some think that the New England doc- 
trine differs from the Westminster doctrine on this 
subject only in the language employed to express 
it. We think differently. The two doctrines 
seem to us palpably diverse. Hopkins, Emmons, 
Dwight, Taylor, Stuart, and others were certainly 
able to comprehend the meaning of terms ; and 
beyond all doubt they rejected not merely what 
they considered objectionable phraseology but 
also a well-defined principle, which they certainly 
well understood. 

IV. Sin and Depravity. 

On this subject the Confession of Faith teaches 
that our first parents being "the root of all man- 
kind * * * the same death in sin and corrupted 
nature were conveyed to all their posterity, descend- 
ing from them by ordinary generation." " This 

* Sermon 32. 



60 



corruption of nature, both itself and all the mo- 
tions thereof are truly and properly sin."* And 
the Shorter Catechism teaches that "the sinful- 
ness of that state whereinto man fell consists in 
the guilt of Adam's first sin, the want of original 
righteousness, and the corruption of his whole na- 
ture, which is commonly called original sin, to- 
gether with all actual transgressions which pro- 
ceed from it."f " Sin is any want of conformity 
to or transgression of the law of God.":j: 

On this subject, New England divines differ. 
Some hold to the old doctrine of a sinful, corrupt, 
depraved nature in man, antecedent to all sinful 
acts. Such is the position of Dwight and Woods. 
They believe in original sin, as well as actual. 
Others, again, maintain that all sin consists in 
acts or exercises contrary to God's law, and that 
there is no such thing as a sinful nature or dispo- 
sition antecedent to sinful exercises. These are 
pre-eminently the New School. In this funda- 
mental principle, the regular Hopkinsians, New 
Haven divines, and Emmonites, all agree. The 
" Exercise " men, as they are called, however, dif- 
fer among themselves. Some admit the existence 
of a propensity or disposition to sin, but deny that 
this propensity or , disposition is at all sinful. 
Others refuse to admit that there is, in any man, 
any such bias, but maintain that all exercises of 
the soul are the direct result of the divine efficiency. 

* Chap, vi : Sect. 3 and 5. f Q- 13- t Q. 14. 



61 



The former call Hopkins father, the latter Em- 
mons. The New Haven men plead that infants 
come into the world as free from sin as Adam, 
and that they are not subjects of moral govern- 
ment until they become moral agents. The ad- 
vocates of this scheme, commonly known as the 
" Exercise Scheme," are neither few nor feeble. 
Taylor and his coadjutors were its avowed cham- 
pions. Prof. Park, of Andover, in his " Conven- 
tion Sermon," and in his controversy with Prof. 
Hodge growing out of it, boldly avowed and earn- 
estly maintained there is no nature in man ante- 
cedent to sinful acts that can truly and properly 
be called sinful. " That all sin consists in action," 
Dr. Dana declares to be Prof. Park's favorite 
maxim. 

These principles — which are throughout totally 
inconsistent with the old doctrine of original sin, 
which indeed cut it up root and branch — are be- 
lieved to be widely prevalent. They have been 
long taught at New Haven and Andover — the 
leading orthodox theological seminaries in New 
England. They are asserted and defended by the 
most prominent and influential divines. The edi- 
tors of the Panoplist, in their introductory ad- 
dress,* say : — " For the last fifteen or twenty years, 
the great doctrines of original sin and regenera- 
tion, as they were understood by the reformers 
and the churches of the Reformation, have been 

* Vol. I, p. 12 



62 



assailed with the same arts, and for the most part 
with the same arguments and objections, which 
they encounter among Socinians and infidels." 
" The fundamental doctrine of the New School in 
theology is this ; that there is, and can be nothing 
holy or sinful in any intelligent being aside from 
his acts ; that all the inherent inclinations, dispo- 
sitions, and affections of the soul, are innocent, 
neither holy nor sinful ; that Adam came into this 
world without any inherent holiness, his moral ex- 
cellence originating with himself, and his posterity 
come into life with no dispositions or inclinations 
morally wrong. This is also the fundamental 
principle of Pelagianism, which necessarily leads 
to all the rest, and can end only in gross rational- 
ism, or infidelity, which has always been the issue 
of this doctrine. It was also the fundamental 
principle of New England Arminianism, whose 
developments have been Socinianism and Pan- 
theism." This theology, they declare, has affected 
a " great portion of the Congregational churches." 
On these extracts the editors of the Congregation- 
alist remark : — " "Why limit the prevalence of this 
peculiar type of theology to the last fifteen or 
twenty years ? Do not the editors know, that 
what is here denominated the fundamental princi- 
ple of the New School theology, i. e., that all sin 
consists in action, has been very generally held in 
New England, and to a considerable extent out of 
it, for more than fifty years ; that it was the the- 
ology of Hopkins and Emmons, of West and 






63 



Spring, and the men of that day — names great and 
venerable; that it was the chief distinguishing fea- 
ture of that school and system, called, from its 
illustrious founder, the Hopkinsian ; that it is the 
theology not only of some of the ablest and best 
men now living, but of the greatest and best 
names on the roll of American divines for the last 
half century ; that it is the theology of the very 
men whose writings the Doctrinal Tract Society 
are engaged at this very time in publishing ?"* 
When Mr. Finney was in Boston, something more 
than twenty years ago, he preached this "funda- 
mental doctrine of the New School theology." 
His position was severely reviewed in a religious 
journal of that city. Something of a controversy 
followed. In a review of the whole subject, the 
" Spirit of the Pilgrims " says : — " A vast majority 
of the orthodox clergy of New England might be 
represented, on this ground, as denying the ' doc- 
trine of entire depravity,' with the same propriety 
as Mr. Finney ; for they agree with him in dis- 
carding the notion of a sinful bias or taste, as dis- 
tinct from, and prior to, sinful exercises of the 
will."f Many of those among New England di- 
vines, who hold to the doctrine of an original, de- 
praved nature, seem to regard those who maintain 
the "Exercise Scheme" as equally entitled with 
themselves to be styled " orthodox." Dr. Woods 
pleads a compromise. Dr. Pond speaks of " this 

* Cong. Feb. 1, 1850. t Spirit of the Pilgrims, vol. v., p. 164. 



64 



difference as existing among our soundest theolo- 
gians," and " as in practice amounting to very lit- 
tle." He says : — " It has proved no bar to frater- 
nal union and cooperation, and expresses a hope 
that it may be so in time to come."* Prof. Park 
has for many years occupied the most important 
chair in the most important theological institution 
in New England. He has boldly taught this and 
kindred doctrines all along, and teaches them still. 
The venerable Dr. Dana, an eminent Old School di- 
vine, who has been a member of the board of trus- 
tees from the beginning, remonstrated more than 
five years ago. Little attention was given to his 
solemn words. All now seems quiet. The num- 
ber of students at Andover has not apparently 
been diminished by this cause. Prof. Park is se- 
cure in his place. Now what do these facts tell ? 
Simply this : The orthodox sentiment in Massachu- 
setts sustains the Professor of Christian Theology 
at Andover. It is true that some — we might, per- 
haps, say many — do not approve his teachings on 
this subject. They lament the position of things 
and would gladly see it altered. Yet we cannot 
see how the conclusion can be avoided, that the 
popular voice endorses Prof. Park, or also agrees 
with Dr. Pond, in believing the difference between 
him and the Old School, to amount in practice to 
very little. A review of all the facts certainly jus- 
tifies us in affirming that the doctrine of original 

* Sketches, etc., viii. 



65 



native depravity is not a principle of the prevail- 
ing theology of New England. 

V. Human Inability. 

The doctrine of the Confession of Faith on this 
subject is expressed in the following terms : — " By 
this original corruption we are utterly indisposed, 
disabled, and made opposite to all good, and 
wholly inclined to all evil."* — " Man by his fall 
hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual 
good accompanying salvation : so, as a natural 
man, being altogether averse from that good and 
dead in sin, is not able by his own strength, to 
convert himself or prepare himself thereunto."f — 
The Catechism says : " No mere man since the 
fall is able in this life perfectly to keep the com- 
mandments of God." \ This plain and unequivocal 
language is regarded by Old School divines as 
an admirable exhibition of the doctrine of Scrip- 
ture on this subject. Since the days of Edwards, 
however, theologians of all classes have been ac- 
customed to speak of man as possessing full na- 
tural ability to keep God's law, but as destitute of 
moral ability — as naturally able, but morally una- 
ble to do God's bidding. This phraseology has 
been, and still is, employed in widely different 
senses. Under it one man teaches Scripture truth, 

* Chap, vi : Sect. 4. f Chap, ix : Sect. 3. t Quest. 82. 

6* 



66 



another soul-destroying error. The Old School 
man, wishing to employ the phraseology immor- 
talized by the elder Edwards, concedes man's na- 
tural ability — understanding thereby those powers 
and faculties necessary to constitute a moral 
agent. At the same time he asserts strongly 
man's moral inability — understanding thereby the 
native depravity or enmity of the human heart 
against God — and thus leaves on the minds of 
men a deep sense of their absolute helplessness 
because of sin. The New School man, conceding 
man's moral inability — understanding thereby a 
fixed unwillingness to render obedience to God's 
law — affirms most earnestly his complete natural 
ability, understanding thereby that he comes into 
this world fully equipped with all that is necessary 
to qualify him for keeping perfectly God's com- 
mandments, and hence teaches the proposition 
"that there is nothing to hinder a man's loving 
God, and obeying him perfectly, but his own un- 
willingness," — " that ability is commensurate with 
responsibility." From such instructions the sinner 
goes away with the belief that he can be perfectly 
holy the moment he chooses. At present those 
who are really solicitous to teach men their de- 
pendence on God for converting and sanctifying 
grace, discard this ancient distinction as embar- 
rassing and likely to convey erroneous views in 
spite of all the care the preacher can take. Of this 
class Dr. Woods is a notable example. In plain 
Scripture language, he teaches man's inability in 



67 



the broadest and most absolute sense, and points 
out his desperate wickedness or depravity of na- 
ture as that in which it consists. There are those 
among the " orthodox," whose views on this sub- 
ject and modes of presenting it agree with those 
of Dr. Woods. 

There is, however, reason to believe that the 
prevailing theology on this subject is something 
very different. We may ascertain it with a good 
degree of accuracy, by examining the teachings of 
the theological seminaries. 

Dr. Tyler, of East Windsor, Conn. — president 
of a seminary founded for the express purpose of 
maintaining a testimony for truth betrayed at 
New Haven — in a recent sermon, preached and 
published with the view of correcting what he 
deemed erroneous opinions gaining currency in 
that neighborhood, affirms as his main proposi- 
tion, that " God does not require of man what he 
has no power to do." In his discussion he con- 
cedes man's inability, but places it altogether in 
want of inclination to obedience. Throughout 
his entire discourse he gives great prominence to 
man's natural ability, and adduces a variety of 
considerations to prove it. The whole drift of his 
argument is to lessen, or explain away man's ina- 
bility, and exalt his ability. The tendency of the 
discourse is to weaken in the mind of the sinner 
the sense of dependence on divine grace. Dr. 
Harvey — an Old School Presbyterian of Thomp- 
sonville — took the professor to task for his sermon. 



68 



Dr. Tyler replied, assuring Dr. Harvey that all he 
meant in vindicating man's natural ability, was 
to teach that he is a free agent. Whereupon Dr. 
Harvey reads him a timely lecture on the proper 
use of terms, and suggests the propriety of em- 
ploying language that will convey his meaning, 
and not something the very opposite. Dr. Tyler 
published another sermon a good many years ago, 
in which he lays down as his main proposition, 
that " there is nothing to hinder the salvation of 
any man but his own will." In the same discourse 
he affirms "that man has perfect ability to comply 
with the terms of salvation, if he will." In another 
sermon, published about the same time, he uses 
the following language : " How many hear the 
gospel, upon whom it produces no salutary effect. 
And why ? Not because they are incapable of 
yielding to the motives of the gospel, but because 
they resist those motives." " It will not avail the 
sinner to plead he has no power to obey. He has 
power. If he has power to sin, he has power to 
cease from sinning — if he has power to rebel 
against God, he has power to submit to God. He 
has all the power he needs : all indeed, which he 
can possess. If God were to renew his heart this 
moment, his power would not be increased ; he 
would only be willing to use aright the power 
which he now abuses and perverts." " When God 
works in men to will and to do, it is not to enable 
men to do their duty; but to incline them to do 
what they are able to do and what they ought to 



69 



do without any supernatural divine influence." 
In time the Doctor was quoted by the Congrega- 
tionalist as favoring the New School theology.* 
Soon after he comes forward with sundry explana- 
tions, seemingly intended to show that his true 
meaning was something very different from what 
his language imports. In the recent controversy, 
growing out of the Enfield case, he avowed views 
on this subject which Old School men generally 
will accept as sound. Yet if we are to take his 
published sermons as specimens of his method of 
teaching the doctrine, there can be but little doubt 
but that his influence contributes to swell the tide 
of error on this subject. 

The position occupied by Prof. Park renders it 
particularly important to ascertain his views and 
teachings on this subject. Dr. Dana says : — " His 
views of human ability are extravagant and ex- 
treme. They obviously tend to foster in man a 
spirit of pride, of self-sufficiency, of independence 
on God, and emphatically of procrastination."! 
In his Convention sermon and appended notes, he 
plainly teaches man's ability to be commensurate 
with his responsibility, and places this inability, 
of which he is subject, in his unwillingness. In 
his controversy with Prof. Hodge, he entered into 
a long and labored argument to prove that the 
Edwardean divines, in affirming man's natural 
ability, " meant something more than that he is 

* Cong. Nov. 21, 1851. f Remonstrance, p. 24. 



70 



possessed of natural capacities of soul and body." 
He quotes, with approbation, the following from 
Dr. Emmons : — " Unrenewed men are as able to 
do right, as to do wrong ; and to do their duty, as 
to neglect their duty ; to love God as to hate God, 
to choose life as to choose death ; to walk in the 
narrow way to life, as in the broad way to hell ;" 
"as able to embrace the gospel as a thirsty man is 
to drink water, or a hungry man to eat the most 
delicious food." " They can love God, repent of 
sin, and believe in Christ, and perform every re- 
ligious duty, as well as they can think, or speak, 
or walk." And the following from Dr. Smalley : — 
" It must be granted that we do generally suppose 
a man's present duty cannot exceed his present 
strength, suppose it to have been impaired by what 
means it may." " And this" says Prof. Park, " is 
the common representation of the 6 Exercise School? " 
" It is the common remark of the Edwardean 
school, that men have no inability to repent ex- 
cept their unwillingness." " The doctrine of New 
England is, that any powerlessness in the original, 
literal, proper meaning of the word, is incompati- 
ble with obligation."* Such is the theology taught 
in the most prominent theological seminary, and 
in the leading theological quarterly in New Eng- 
land. 

On this subject the influence of East Windsor 
and Andover seem to be in the same direction. 

*Bib. Sac, Jan., 1352. 



71 



The New Haven theology is well known. Most 
likely no antagonism exists at Bangor. Prof. Pond 
w r ould hardly find any good reason for rejecting 
the language of his ancient instructor, Dr. Em- 
mons. 

The Boston Congregationalist, under date of 
Decemeer 14, 1849, has the following language in 
its editorial columns in relation to the answer in 
the Catechism to the question — " Is any man able 
perfectly to keep the commandments of God ?" — 
" It cannot be true that we are not able to keep 
that law. We need no better proof that we can 
keep it than the simple fact that God requires us 
to do so. We have always regarded the above 
answer in the Catechism as conveying an idea 
which either is not intended, or if intended, is al- 
together false and unsound in theology. That no 
mere man can possibly keep the divine law in this 
life, is by no means true." This language is clear 
and explicit. 

The Doctrinal Book and Tract Society teach, 
in No. 23 of their series, that the Holy Spirit is 
necessary merely because men are unwilling to 
receive the gospel. " Had they a willing mind, 
the work would be done."* In No. 8 we find the 
following language : — " A sinful man can become 
holy — the non-elect can comply with the terms of 
the gospel — they are just as able to repent and 
believe the gospel as the elect — as capable of do- 



p.7. 



72 



ing right as doing wrong — it is proper to say they 
can do what they are willing to do."* 

These views, there can be no doubt, prevail 
among the orthodox in New England. 



VI. Christ's Satisfaction. 

The doctrine of the Westminster Standards on 
this subject is expressed in the following terms : — 
" The Lord Jesus, by his perfect obedience and 
sacrifice of himself, which he through the Eternal 
Spirit once offered up to God, has fully satisfied 
the justice of his father : and purchased not only 
reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in 
the kingdom of heaven for all those whom the 
father hath given unto him."f This is usually re- 
garded as the doctrine, substantially set forth by 
Dr. Woods in his published lectures. It will also 
be difficult to make good a charge of heresy on 
this subject against Dr. Hopkins. His neighbor, 
Dr. Stiles, a thorough going old-Calvinist, while 
finding fault with some of Hopkins' disciples, for 
"denying a real vicarious suffering in Christ's 
atonement," admitted that Hopkins himself " dif- 
fered from them, and held the atonement in a just 
and scriptural sense." Edwards and all the great 
orthodox divines who preceded him in New Eng- 
land, taught the dockine of the Confession. Even 
yet there are those who believe it and preach it. 

*p. 4. f Chap, viii : Sect. 5. 



73 



Dr. "Woods, however, informs us that erroneous 
opinions on this subject exist among the orthodox. 
He states them in the following terms : — " Christ 
did not die in the place of sinners, as a vicarious 
sacrifice, to satisfy divine justice and procure the 
forgiveness of sins, but merely to make an affect- 
ing demonstration of God's perfect readiness to 
save sinners, and by a striking instance of pa- 
tience and quiet submission in suffering to win 
their hearts to love and obedience."* From other 
sources we learn that the New England doctrine 
of the atonement is something different from that 
which formerly prevailed, very nearly identical 
with what Dr. Woods calls an erroneous opinion. 
Dr. Pond throws much valuable light on the sub- 
ject. He says :— " The doctrine of atonement, 
which seems not to have been touched by Presi- 
dent Edwards, except as involved in the more 
general subject of redemption, was very lucidly 
treated by his son, and by Rev. Dr. West, of 
Stockbridge. To these men, more than to any 
others, are the theologians of New England in- 
debted for the clear and consistent views which 
now generally prevail in relation to this vital topic. 
The distinction between atonement and redemp- 
tion ; the universality of the former as to its suffi- 
ciency, and the particularity of the latter as to its 
application ; the entire consistency between full 
satisfaction, on the one hand, and free grace in 

* Puritan Theology, p. 41. 



74 



forgiveness on the other; these are points, which, 
so far as I know, had never been clearly stated 
and established, previous to the publications of 
the younger Edwards and of Dr. West."* 

Dr. Pond gives us to understand that the views 
which now generally prevail, on this subject, are 
more clear and consistent than the ancient doc- 
trine and authorizes us to look to Dr. Edwards as 
their expounder. It is therefore important to as- 
certain what are the teachings of that celebrated 
divine. They are fully set forth in his Sermons on 
the Atonement — " preached before His Excellency 
the Governor, and a large number of both houses 
of the legislature of the State of Connecticut, dur- 
ing their sessions at New Haven, in October, 1785, 
and published by request." The difficulty of re- 
conciling the great truth that forgiveness of sins is 
in consequence of the riches of Divine grace, with 
the commonly received doctrine of the atonement, 
led him to endeavor after some other view of the 
subject, that would not be exposed to these diffi- 
culties. " If the sinner's debt be paid, how does 
it appear that there is any pardon or grace in his 
deliverance ?" he asks. " By thjs difficulty," he 
says in his Introduction to the discussion of this 
subject, "some have been induced to reject the 
doctrine of Christ's redemption, satisfaction, or 
atonement. Others who have not been driven to 
that .extremity by this difficulty, yet have been ex- 

* Sketches, etc., No. 5. 



75 



ceedingly perplexed and embarrassed. Of these 
last I freely admit myself to have been one. Hav- 
ing from my youth devoted myself to the study of 
theoretic and practical theology, I have regarded 
this as one of the Gordian knots in that science." 
His theory he regards as a solution of the prob- 
lem. The Gordian knot he professes to untie, not 
cut. While he maintains that we are forgiven 
through the atonement of Christ, and can be for- 
given in no other way, he also asserts as a princi- 
ple fundamental to his theory, that "the atone- 
ment does not consist in the payment of a debt, 
properly so called." The reason why an atone- 
ment is necessary to the pardon of a sinner is the 
same why his punishment would have been neces- 
sary if no atonement had been made. It is neces- 
sary, as he says, to maintain the dignity and 
authority of the lawgiver, as well as the consis- 
tency between the legislative and executive de- 
partments of his government. His definition of 
the atonement corresponds with his reasons for its 
necessity. " It consists," he says, "in doing that 
which, for the purpose of establishing the author- 
ity of the Divine law, and of supporting in due 
time the Divine government, is equivalent to the 
punishment of the sinner according to the letter of 
the law." Although he speaks of Christ as a sub- 
stitute for sinners, yet he does not use the term in 
the sense in which it is ordinarily employed by 
Calvinistic writers discussing this subject. His 
meaning is that the atonement is the substitute 



76 



for the punishment threatened in the law. and was 
intended to accomplish the same ends in relation 
to God's law and governmente He does not teach 
that Christ, standing in the " room and stead " of 
his elect, pays their debt, or endures the penalty 
due to their sins; his sufferings and death, how- 
ever, he regards as equivalent to the eternal pun- 
ishment of the sinner, as far as the maintenance 
of the authority and dignity of his law and gov- 
ernment is concerned. 

In expounding the doctrine of the atonement, 
he speaks of three kinds of justice — commutative, 
distributive, and general. Commutative justice, 
he says, respects property, and requires that every 
man should receive the payment of his debts. 
Now the atonement, he pleads, has no respect to 
this kind of justice at all. It is not the payment 
of any of our debts. It does not, therefore, satisfy 
commutative justice. Distributive justice has re- 
spect to man's personal character or conduct, and 
requires that virtue, or good conduct, should be 
rewarded, and crimes, or vicious conduct, punished. 
The atonement, he claims, has no respect what- 
ever to this kind of justice, since man just as much 
deserves punishment as though Christ had made 
no atonement. If Christ, by his sufferings and 
death, had satisfied distributive justice, then, he 
argues, forgiveness would not have been of grace, 
but of debt — nothing more than man's due. But 
the atonement does not satisfy this kind of justice; 
and hence, he reasons, forgiveness is a grace, a 



77 



free gift, because, notwithstanding the atonement, 
man deserves death just as much as if Christ had 
never died. General or public justice, he says, 
comprehends all moral goodness, and requires that 
the thing which is right be done. To practise 
justice, in this sense of the term, is to act agreea- 
bly to the dictates of general benevolence. And 
the pardon of the sinner is, according to this view 
of the subject, an act of justice, because it is un- 
doubtedly most conducive to the divine glory and 
general good of the created system, that every be- 
liever in Christ should be pardoned. The atone- 
ment satisfies this kind of justice, because it was 
right and proper that it should be made, and tends 
to the greatest good of intelligent beings. This 
sense of the word justice is, however, he tells us, 
an improper one, and hence he claims that the 
atonement, in no proper sense of the term, satisfies 
justice, nor is forgiveness an act of justice. Dr. 
Edwards regarded the efficiency of the atonement 
as consisting in this, that, in consequence of it, 
God can pardon and save sinners, and still main- 
tain the dignity and authority of his government. 
It secures nothing. It only opens up the way for 
God's mercy and grace to go forth. How it ope- 
rates to accomplish this end, he does not tell us. 
His theory renders necessary a departure from the 
common phraseology on the subject ; yet he still 
uses it to a considerable extent, and thus not un- 
frequently seems to teach a doctrine different from 
that which he really holds. 



78 



Such are what Prof. Pond styles " the clear and 
consistent views now generally prevalent on this 
vital topic." 

Dr. Emmons' views very nearly accord with 
those of Dr. Edwards. A few propositions will 
clearly set them forth. All that was necessary 
was that the way should be opened up, whereby 
God, consistently with his justice, could forgive 
sin. If a substitute would suffer in the room of 
sinners God's justice would be appeased, and the 
obstacles in the way of his exercising pardoning 
grace removed. Christ became this substitute, 
endured the needful suffering, and thus atoned for 
sin. Christ's obedience to the law was no part of 
his mediatorial work — further than it qualified 
him for suffering, as the lamb must needs be with- 
out blemish. The entire efficacy of his sufferings 
was to open the way for the forgiveness of sins. 
God, in consequence, can offer salvation to all 
mankind, and bestow it upon all penitent, believ- 
ing, returning sinners. All that the believer re- 
ceives for Christ's sake is forgiveness. Christ did 
not endure the penalty due to sinners — he did not 
endure any punishment at all — he did not pay the 
debt sinners owed to God, either of suffering or 
obedience. The doctrine of a limited atonement 
he rejected totally, contending Christ's death had 
the same favorable aspect on the non-elect as the 
elect. He denied that Christ merited any thing 
for sinners. The very phrase, merits of Christ, he 
discarded as unscriptural and improper. He says : 



79 



u It is often designedly or undesignedly used to 
convey the idea that Christ, by his obedience and 
sufferings on the cross, paid the debt of suffering 
and obedience in the room of sinners, so that God 
is obliged, in point of justice, to release them from 
eternal sufferings, and bestow upon them eternal 
life. This is a false and unscriptural sentiment, 
and naturally tends to lead men into several other 
great and dangerous errors."* " Though Christ 
suffered the just for the unjust, though he made 
his soul an offering for sin, and though he suffered 
most excruciating pains in the garden and on the 
cross, yet he did not lay God under the least obli- 
gation to pardon and save a single sinner."f 

The views of Emmons, on some subjects, are 
not received by many in New England. His doc- 
trine of the atonement, however, does not appear 
here to meet with any opposition. Dr. Dwight's 
views of the atonement conform substantially to 
those of the younger Edwards, nor do they differ 
materially from those of Emmons. His definition 
clearly exhibits the sense in which he held the 
doctrine. "The atonement consists in making 
sufficient amends for the faults which men have 
committed, and placing the law and government 
of God in such a situation that when sinners are 
pardoned, both shall be equally honorable and effi- 
cacious as before."J Christ was a substitute, 
equally of all mankind. He no more atoned for 

* Works, Vol. V., p. 35. t Id. p. 25. J Dwight's Theology, Vol. II., p. 206. 



80 



the elect than for the damned. He did not pay 
the debt his people owed to God ; he only made 
such amends for the sins and faults of men, that 
God might honorably pardon and save whom he 
would. The atonement secured nothing ; it only 
rendered salvation possible. The obedience of 
Christ was essentially concerned in the atone- 
ment, but only as qualifying him to work it out. 
It was necessary that Christ should be holy, that 
he might be a fit Mediator. Such is the atone- 
ment Dwight teaches. He does not give the obe- 
dience of Christ the prominence, or hold it in the 
sense customary among Calvinistic divines. He 
does not exhibit it as needful to merit eternal life 
for those for whom Christ atoned by his suffer- 
ings, nor does he assign it any separate, independ- 
ent fuuction ; he subordinates it altogether to his 
propitiatory sufferings. He expressly says : — " The 
attempts made to discriminate between these parts 
of Christs's mediation, and to assign to each its 
exact proportion of influence in the economy of 
redemption, seem to me to have been very par- 
tially successful."* Dr. Dwight has exerted a pow- 
erful influence over the New England mind. 

In 1823, James Murdock, D. D., Professor in the 
Theological Seminary at Andover, published a 
sermon on the " Nature of the Atonement." " The 
sermon was delivered," he tells us, in his adver- 
tisement, "to an audience composed chiefly of 

*Dwight>s Theology, Vol. II., p. 216. 



81 



theological students, and designed to aid them in 
forming their opinions on the important subject 
discussed." This fact, together with the position 
of the author, renders the sermon peculiarly im- 
portant as a source of information on the subject 
in hand. The following brief extracts, it is be- 
lieved, fairly exhibit his doctrine. " The atone- 
ment must be something different from the execu- 
tion of the law itself: because it is to be a sub- 
stitute for it, something which will render it safe 
and proper to suspend the regular course of dis- 
tributive justice." " The atonement was in the na- 
ture of it an exhibition of the righteousness of 
God. It did not consist in an execution of the 
law on any being whatever, for it was a substi- 
tute for an execution of it." " It did not fulfil the 
law or satisfy its demands on transgressors." "Its 
immediate influence was not on the characters 
and relations of men, as transgressors, nor on the 
claims of the law upon them. Its direct operation 
was on the feelings and the apprehensions of the 
beings at large who are under the moral govern- 
ment of God." " The atonement was a public 
exhibition; and such an exhibition as would im- 
press all the creatures of God with a deep and 
awful sense of the majesty and sanctity of his 
law, of the criminality of disobedience to it, and 
of the holy, unbending rectitude of God as a 
moral governor." " It represented these things 
symbolically." " It did not satisfy the demands of 
the violated law upon the sinner." " All that it 



82 



could do was to display the feelings of God in 
regard to his law : and secure by the impression 
it made the public objects, which would be gained 
by an execution of the law. It did not cancel 
any of the claims of the law upon us. And hence 
after the atonement was made God was under no 
legal obligations to exempt any man from punish- 
ment. If he had never pardoned a single trans- 
gressor, neither law nor distributive justice would 
have been contravened. And if he pardons at all, 
it is mere grace. Or to state it otherwise, the 
atonement was not of such a nature as to require 
God to pardon us, but it enables him to do it, 
with credit to himself and safety to his kingdom." 
Such were the views taught at Andover twenty- 
two years ago. They were opposed, however. 
Prof. Stuart, it is said, published two discourses 
to counteract their influence ; and Dr. Woods, 
filling, as he did, the chair of Professor of Chris- 
tian theology, could hardly have been silent. 
There must have been collisions, even in the pul- 
pit of the Seminary* It might be difficult, how- 
ever, to point out any real difference between the 
doctrine of Murdock on the one hand, and of Ed- 
wards the younger, Emmons and Dwight, on the 
other. 

Prof. Park, in a note to his convention sermon, 
declares his dissent from the views of Symington, 
and gives the following as his own definition of 
the atonement : — u A true representation seems to 
be, that although Christ has not literally paid the 



83 



debt of sinners, nor literally borne their punish- 
ment, nor satisfied the legislative nor the remunera- 
tive justice of God in any such sense or degree as 
itself to make it obligatory on him to save any 
sinners, yet the atonement has such a relation to 
the whole moral government of God as to make it 
consistent with the honor of his legislative and re- 
tributive justice to save all men, and to make it 
essential to the highest honor of his benevolence 
or general justice to renew and save some. There- 
fore it satisfies the law and justice of God in such 
a sense as to render it proper for him to offer sal- 
vation to all men, bestow it upon all who will ac- 
cept it, and cause those to accept it for whom the 
interests of the universe will allow him to inter- 
pose his regenerating grace." Dr. Dana represents 
Prof. Park as " maintaining that it cannot be said 
Christ's passive obedience frees us from punish- 
ment, and that in case of the penitent the de- 
mands of the law are evaded or waved."* Prof. 
Park would hardly take exception to the doctrine 
of Dr. Murdock's sermon. 

Tract No. 8 of the series issued by the Doctrinal 
Book and Tract Society, uses the following lan- 
guage : — " God has provided a full and complete 
atonement for all the sins of all mankind." " The 
atonement of Christ is sufficient for all, offered to 
all, and irrespective of the divine purpose as to 
its effectual application made as much for one 

* Remonstrance, p. 9 



84 



man as another." " It has never yet been proved 
that Christ died exclusively for the elect." These 
testimonies justify us in concluding that while 
some may hold to an atonement such as is taught 
in the Confession and Catechisms, the prevailing 
theology teaches rather a symbolical transaction, 
efficacious in securing the salvation of none, but 
only in opening up the way for the consistent ex- 
ercise of mercy on God's part, and which has of 
course the same favorable aspect on the non-elect 
as the elect. 



VIII. Regeneration, Conversion, Effectual Calling. 

That change by which the sinner is united to 
Christ is in the Confession and Catechisms termed 
" effectual calling." This phrase has gone very 
much out of use in New England. " Regenera- 
tion " and " conversion " are more commonly em- 
ployed. Dr. Pond says : — " Our ministers do not 
merge regeneration in effectual calling." The 
Confession of Faith states the doctrine on this 
subject in the following terms : — " All the elect, 
God is pleased, effectually to call, by his word 
and Spirit out of that state of sin and death in 
which they are by nature to grace and salvation 
by Jesus Christ ; enlightening their minds spirit- 
ually and savingly to understand the things of 
God ; taking away their heart of stone and giving 
them a heart of flesh ; renewing their wills and by 



85 



his almighty power determining them to that 
which is good and effectually drawing them to 
Jesus Christ, yet so as they come most freely, be- 
ing made willing by his grace." " Man is alto- 
gether passive therein, until, being quickened and 
renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled 
to answer this call and to embrace the grace offer- 
ed and conveyed in it."* Such was the ancient 
doctrine of New England. Dwight and Woods, 
together with those who hold the old doctrine 
of a depraved nature antecedent to sinful actions, 
still maintain, substantially, the same principles. 
Those, however, who with the New Haven and 
Andover men deny antecedent depravity hold pe- 
culiar views as to regeneration. The New Haven 
divines maintain that the term regeneration is to 
be understood in two senses — the theological and 
popular. In the first sense it denotes a change in 
the governing purpose of the mind ; and is that 
act of the mind, by which the sinner, prompted 
by self-love, chooses God as his portion or chief 
good. In the last or popular sense, it denotes a 
process, or series of acts and states of mind, and 
includes all those acts which they denominate 
" Using the means of regeneration." They main- 
tain that antecedent to regeneration, in the re- 
stricted or theological sense, the selfish principle 
is suspended in the sinner's heart, that the sinner 
then ceases to sin, and is in a state of neutrality, 

* Chap. X : Sect. 1 and 2. 



86 



and that in this state he uses the means of regen- 
eration with motives which are neither right nor 
wrong— he takes into solemn consideration the 
question whether the highest happiness is to be 
found in God or in the world — he pursues this 
inquiry until it results in the conviction that such 
happiness is to be found in God only. He follows 
up the conviction with engrossing contemplation, 
till he discovers an excellence in divine objects 
which excites him to make desperate efforts to 
give his heart to God; and in this process of 
thought, of effort, and of action, he perseveres till 
it results in a change of heart. Thus they, in 
fact, represent regeneration as a gradual and pro- 
gressive work. They also maintain that the sin- 
ner may so resist the grace of God as to render it 
impossible for God to convert him. That this re- 
presentation is correct, will be abundantly evident 
to any one who will carefully examine the Chris- 
tian Spectator for 1829, pp. 16, 17, 18, 19, 32, 33, 
227. They deny, in the most explicit terms, that 
there is any change in the nature or disposition of 
the sinner antecedent to the exercise of right af- 
fections. " As to those who hold to the infusion 
of something into the soul previous, either in the 
order of time or nature to the first right affection, 
and as a sort of fountain from which such affec- 
tion is to flow, we should only say, that although 
we do not impute to them the blasphemy, yet we 
cannot wholly acquit them of the absurdity of 
Gibbon^ who, in pretending to describe the man- 



87 



ner in which the primitive teachers were inspired, 
says they were mere organs of the Spirit, just as 
the pipe or flute is of him who blows it."* They 
admit the agency of the Spirit in regeneration, 
yet they maintain that its influence is altogether 
persuasive, exerted through the medium of truth 
or motives. " Indeed we know," say they, " of no 
other effectual hold which this divine agent can 
have on the sinner, whom he would turn from the 
error of his ways, but that which consists in so 
bringing the truths of the Bible into contact with 
his understanding and sensibilities that he shall 
voluntarily shun the threatened evil, and choose 
the proffered good."f "This influence he can re- 
sist, and thus harden his heart against God."J 
" Free moral agents can do wrong under all possi- 
ble preventing influence."§ " I do not believe," 
says Dr. Taylor, in his letter to Dr. Hawes, " that 
the grace' of God can be truly said to be irresisti- 
ble in the primary, proper import of the term : 
but I do believe that in all cases it may be resist- 
ed by man as a free agent ; and that when it does 
become effectual to conversion, it is unresisted" 
Such, substantially, are the views of Finney, 
(who is understood to speak the sentiments of the 
New Haven divines,) as set forth in his sermon 
entitled " Sinners bound to change their own 
hearts." As far therefore as the theology of New 
Haven extends this is the doctrine which prevails. 

* Christ. Spect. 1833, p. 361. | lb- P- 356. % lb. 1331, p. 637. § lb. 1830, p. 563. 



88 



Dr. Dana intimates that Prof. Park regards it as 
a change in the balance of the susceptibilities.* 
The Professor himself declares that in regenera- 
tion a nature inclining to sin, but not sinful, is 
changed into a nature inclining to holiness, but 
not holy, and that by the omnipotence of the re- 
generating Spiritf The editors of the Congrega- 
tionalist, after quoting from Calvinistic divines, 
with the view of exhibiting the Old School doc- 
trine on this subject, reason thus : — " The state- 
ments which precede will enable any one to judge 
how great is the change which has taken place 
among many New England divines on this point. 
It amounts to an entire revolution. The theory 
of passivity in regeneration has been rejected, and 
the Synergistic theory adopted in its place. Of 
this we have a striking illustration in the tracts 
written by various New England divines for the 
Doctrinal Tract Society. On p. 3, of No. 27, it is 
taught that the Scriptures represent men 'as act- 
ing and being acted upon in their regeneration or 
conversion.' On p. 7 there is an argument against 
such as hold that man is ' merely passive in regen- 
eration. 5 On p. 15 it is said, i The sinner is not 
passive, but active in regeneration. 5 In Tract No. 
3, the ascription to the orthodox of the doctrine 
that regeneration is 'the sole act of God 5 is treated 
as a slander, and the doctrine is taught that God 
renovates us ' by the use of means and motives 

* Remonstrance, p. 8. j Bib. Saera, XXXI. p. 627. 



89 



which leave us as free in conversion and new obe- 
dience as we ever were in transgression.' "* In a 
subsequent number they affirm that Dr. Woods 
and Dr. Tyler coincided in teaching that man is 
active and cooperates with God in regeneration, 
and thus are at variance with the Westminster 
divines ; but nevertheless stand on the platform of 
sound and orthodox New England divines. They 
also labor to show that Jonathan Edwards taught 
the same doctrine.f 

Rev. Mr, Eells, of Newburyport, thus forcibly 
describes the prevalent theology on this subject:— 
" It is action only that needs renovation. \ Regen- 
eration is a change from sinful action to holy ac- 
tion.' c All the work of the Spirit of God is re- 
duced to mere persuasion. He may bring the truth 
home with power on the understanding and con- 
science, but he cannot change the heart. And, in- 
deed, there is no heart to be changed. After all 
the work of the Spirit it remains in the power of 
man to yield or refuse, as he pleases, so that the 
glory of the change is all his own. It is not God 
that makes men to differ. It is their own work.' 
These are the doctrines taught by professors of the* 
ology — that are preached from the pulpit in this 
land of the Pilgrims. The evil is wide-spread, 
and is fast extending itself. This is an undenia- 
ble truth."% 

* April 12, 1850. f Dec. 19, 1851. % Sermons, p. 36, 37. 

8* 



9J 



These testimonies will enable the reader to un- 
derstand the views of regeneration and conversion 
that prevail in New England, 



IX. Justification. 

The Confession of Faith teaches that : " Those 
whom God effectually calleth he also freely justi- 
fieth ; not by infusing righteousness into them, 
but by pardoning their sins and by accounting 
and accepting their persons as righteous ; not for 
any thing wrought in them or done by them, but 
for Christ's sake alone ; not by imputing faith it- 
self, the act of believing, or any other evangelical 
obedience to them as their righteousness ; but by 
imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ 
unto them, they receiving and resting on him and 
his righteousness by faith ; which faith they have 
not of themselves : it is the gift of God."* The 
Catechism defines justification as "an act of 
God's free grace, whereby he pardoneth all our 
sins, and accepts us as righteous in his sight only 
for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us and 
received by faith alone."f There is no difficulty 
in understanding the doctrine of these proposi- 
tions. It is clear and well defined. This too was 
the primitive doctrine among the churches of New 
England. The Synods of 1648 and 1680 affirmed 

* Confession, Chap. XI. Sec. 1. f Ques. 33. 



91 



it. Norton, and Willard, and Edwards, and Bel- 
lamy all taught it. Nor can a charge of heresy on 
this point be made good against Hopkins. But 
what is the present faith of New England? We 
must learn it from the teachings of her leading 
Doctors. 

Dr. Woods, after examining minutely the Scrip- 
tures which speak of justification, concludes thus : 
" And we are sure the apostle meant to teach us 
this momentous doctrine, namely, that sinners 
cannot be justified by works of obedience to the 
law; that if we are justified, it must be by grace, 
on the ground of the righteousness of Christ re- 
ceived by faith ; and that good works, however 
important or indispensable on other accounts, are 
excluded from any influence as the meritorious 
ground of our justification before God."* He 
speaks of God treating men in justification as 
though they had never sinned, as though they 
were not ungodly. The mediatorial work of 
Christ — his obedience and death — he represents 
as the ground or meritorious condition of our for- 
giveness and acceptance with God. Our perfect 
obedience would, according to the law, have been 
the ground of our acceptance with God and en- 
joyment of the blessings of his kingdom. This 
ground of acceptance is wanting. But the obe- 
dience and death of our Redeemer come in place 
of it, and on this ground we enjoy the same favor 

* Works, Vol. III. p. 165. 



92 



with God and the same blessedness as we should 
have done on the ground of our own obedience.* 
Christ's work as Redeemer does, alone, form the 
perfect , meritorious condition, or ground of our jus- 
tification before God, nothing else being needed or 
admitted as a condition or any part of a condition 
in that respect.^ He makes some interesting re- 
marks in relation to justification through the im- 
puted righteousness of Christ. He affirms it to be 
the doctrine of orthodox Protestants generally. 
" Yet," he says, "this doctrine, or rather this man- 
ner of stating it, has for some time past been ob- 
jected to by ministers of the gospel in this coun- 
try, chiefly in New England. And many minis- 
ters and laymen, who have not come to a decision 
on the subject, have an apprehension that this 
form of the doctrine must be given up." The 
reason of this dissent he finds to be that the doc- 
trine is thought to imply that there is a literal 
transfer of moral character or personal attributes 
from one to another. The doctrine, however, he 
affirms, never had any such meaning as this. 
There is no reason, either from the Scriptures or 
from standard Calvinistic divines, to understand 
the word impute in this manner. "When the right- 
eousness of Christ is said to be imputed to us, the 
meaning is not that it properly belongs to us as 
our own personal righteousness, but that it is so 
reckoned to us, or put to our account, that we 

* Works, Vol. III. p. 177. f lb. p. 180. 



93 



share the benefits of it, or are treated as though 
we were righteous. He pleads that the meaning 
put upon the doctrine by some late New England 
divines, is unauthorized. He says that the most 
learned and discriminating of orthodox divines, 
both Lutheran and Calvinistic, take special pains 
to show that the imputation of Christ's righteous- 
ness to us does not imply that his righteousness is 
transferred to us, or infused into us, so as to be- 
come our personal attribute, but only that we par- 
take of its benefit — that his righteousness is ours 
imputatively. He advocates the use of the "impu- 
tation " phraseology, and exhorts his brethren to 
hold fast the form of sound words.* This is the 
theology taught in Dr. Woods' published lectures. 
Prof. Stuart, his distinguished colleague through- 
out his entire professorial career, did not accord 
with him entirely on this subject. His views are 
set forth in his Commentary on the Epistles to 
the Romans. The following extracts exhibit them 
fully. Remarking on the 5th chapter and 19th 
verse he says : — " Though I can scarcely entertain 
a doubt, that the obedience of Christ in this con- 
nection of thought means in particular his obe- 
dience in assuming our nature and his suffering 
an expiatory death in it, yet I would not exclude 
the idea that the active (as well as passive) obe- 
dience of his whole life contribute, yea was neces- 
sary to the perfection of his character as a Media- 

* Works, Vol. III. pp. 201, 207. 



94 



tor, and a great High Priest who should make 
atonement for us. Without such obedience, he 
would have needed an atonement for himself in- 
stead of being able to make it for others. But in 
respect to the pacific allegation, 'that Christ's 
obedience is imputed to us ' : this Paul does not 
here, nor elsewhere, say, nor any other sacred 
writer. This is a phraseology superinduced upon 
the Bible, many years since the Reformation, from 
human systems and methods of explanation ; and 
not one which is taken from the Scriptures and 
transferred into symbols. In all the Bible there 
occurs not such a declaration, as that one marts 
sin or righteousness is imputed to another. (The 
italics are the Professors). The thing for sub- 
stance aimed at by many, who employ such 
phraseology is doubtless a doctrine of the Bible, 
viz. that the obedience of Christ, above all his 
obedience unto death, did contribute to constitute 
him an all-glorious and all-sufficient Mediator. 
As to the rfcst, that God for Christ's sake for- 
gives sinners, not imputing their trespasses unto 
them, is the very sum and substance of what is 
appropriately called the Gospel, and all which 
can exegetically be made out from the simple in- 
terpretation of the Scriptures. For in what part 
of the Bible is it said that Christ obeyed for us ? 
Or where, that his obedience is imputed to us ? 
And yet that on our account or in our behalf, he 
obeyed and suffered, I believe to be a great and 
fundamental doctrine of the Gospel." 



95 



In his excursus on the same passage he says : 
" Believers are made really and veritably holy in part 
(not putatively so) by the sanctifying influences 
of the Spirit of God, on account of what Christ 
has done and suffered ; so that their holiness is 
not in this case factitious, and the Redeemer's ho- 
liness is not veritably theirs. If it were so, then 
perfect holiness would be theirs ; and they could 
then present a claim of salvation on the ground of 
meeting the demands of the law. Mere imputed 
holiness, however, can never answer proper legal 
demands, and therefore it can never entitle the 
sinner to a proper legal acquittal. Pardon is 
given, altogether of grace ; not on the ground of 
either real or factitious, i. e. imputed obedience. 
The first of these sinners cannot plead ; the second 
the law does not in itself admit. If any one 
should reply, as doubtless some may do, that 
Christ is and is called the Lord our Righteousness, 
my reply is that he is at the same time called our 
wisdom, and sanctification and redemption. Now 
he is by this representation made just as much 
our imputed wisdom, and our imputed sanctifica- 
tion, and our imputed redemption as he is our 
imputed righteousness."* Prof. Stuart objects very 
emphatically to the language of the Westminster 
standards on the subject. He can hardly, how- 
ever, be regarded as still holding the same doc- 
trine. He uniformly speaks of justification as 

* Commentary, p. 583. 



96 



gratuitous. An expression above quoted well sets 
forth his uniform teachings : " Pardon is given al- 
together of grace not on the ground of either real 
or imputed obedience." When therefore he teaches 
us that God forgives sinners for Chris fs sake, we 
are not to understand him as meaning that what 
Christ has done and suffered is the ground on 
which he proceeds. The Professor's doctrine is 
about this : Christ by his atonement, for making 
which his holy life was a necessary qualification, 
removed the difficulties in the way of God's sav- 
ing sinners, and now God ; in the exercise of his 
sovereign mercy, bestows pardon and acceptance 
on the believer, without any particular respect to 
a law satisfying righteousness as the ground of 
his procedure. His influence is doubtless in oppo- 
sition to the ancient doctrine of New England, set 
forth in the Westminster symbols. 

Professor Murdock, in his Sermon on the Atone- 
ment, set forth his views of justification : — "Justi- 
fication is not founded on the principles of law 
and distributive justice. It is an absolute pardon, 
an act of mere grace ; and of grace on the part of 
God the Father, as well as on that of God the Son. 
For the operation of Christ's sacrifice, it appears, 
was not on the regular course of distributive jus- 
tice in regard to individual transgressors. Its in- 
fluence was on the public feeling respecting the 
character of God. And it only enabled God, with 
honor to himself, and safety to his kingdom, to 
gratify the desires of his heart by the pardon of 



97 



repenting sinners. Justification is therefore a real 
departure from the regular course of justice ; and 
such a departure from it as leaves the claims of 
the law on the persons justified, forever unsatis- 
fied."* The views of Murdock and Stuart were 
about the same. Their methods of statement 
may differ ; but not their doctrine. Diverse the- 
ologies, on this subject, must have been taught at 
Andover from the foundation of the Seminary. 

Nor does Dr. Dwight's exhibition of this doc- 
trine come up to the ancient standards. To say 
the least of it, it is exceedingly defective. Gospel 
justification is not forensic in its nature ; it only 
closely resembles it ; so thinks Dr. Dwight. "It 
consists," says he, " in the three following things : 
Pardoning the believer's sins, acquitting him from 
the punishment which they have deserved, and en- 
titling him to the rewards or blessings due by law 
to perfect obedience only."f All these are given 
to the sinner out of the free and sovereign love of 
the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost — given without 
respect to any ground or consideration on which 
the act proceeds, but simply of divine grace. The 
work of Christ was efficient in removing the ob- 
stacles in the way of such procedure, and in doing 
no more. According to his views of the subject, 
he cannot admit the doctrine of the imputation of 
Christ's righteousness ; and hence very properly 
banishes it from his system. Dwight's justifica- 

* p. 30. f Dwight's Theology, Vol. II. p. 301. 

9 



98 



tion is without any righteousness whatever. It 
must be admitted, however, that he carefully 
guards against the idea of justification being 
grounded on human merit. He clearly and fully 
teaches it to be of grace. Nor does he make faith 
itself the righteousness. He represents it as being 
only that on the exercise of which these blessings 
are given.* 

Dr. Emmons also taught a doctrine on this sub- 
ject, far different from that of the Catechism. 
Justification, in his judgment, " signifies no more 
nor less than the pardon or remission of sin."f 
He represents it at one time as an act, taking 
place the moment the sinner believes. Again, he 
speaks of it as conditional on perseverance in 
faith and obedience, (which condition is by divine 
grace always fulfilled in the case of every genuine 
believer,) and uses language which would seem to 
teach the doctrine that justification is not com- 
plete until death, or until the required conditions 
are actually fulfilled.^ He further teaches that 
forgiveness comes through the mediation of Christ, 
and is on the ground of his atonement — that God 
bestows no other favor on man on this ground — 
that other blessings are bestowed in consequence 
of the atonement, not on the ground of it — a sin- 
ner being pardoned for Christ's sake is in a fit 
state for receiving other spiritual blessings on 
other grounds. He contended that there is no 

* Dwight's Theology, Vol. II. p. 300,324. | Works, Vol. V. p. 44. X lb. p. 46. 



99 



propriety in directing sinners to go to Christ for 
regenerating or sanctifying grace, or for any thing 
but pardon, which is all that ministers have any 
authority to offer sinners through Christ.* The 
distinction of Christ's obedience into active and 
passive he pronounced unscriptural. The doc- 
trine that believers are accepted as righteous, and 
entitled to eternal life, on the ground of Christ's 
imputed righteousness, he rejected as unreasona- 
ble and absurd. Imputation found no favor in his 
eyes. Eternal life, and all its implied blessings, 
are bestowed, according to his teachings, as the 
reward of the believer's own sincere obedience. 
God does not, he holds, bestow eternal life on be- 
lievers because their sincere obedience atones for 
their sin, or because it merits eternal life, but be- 
cause it is a proper ground, reason, or condition, 
for bestowing on them such a gracious and un- 
merited reward.f The doctrine that believers are 
rewarded, or receive eternal life, for Christ's obe- 
dience, as really and truly as they are forgiven for 
his atonement, he pronounces a palpable absurd- 
ity"% Such are the views of the " Sage of 
Franklin " in relation to the great matter of man's 
justification. 

Prof. Park, according to Dr. Dana, teaches " that 
Christ needed obedience for himself, and could not 
perform a work of supererogation for others; that 
if Christ obeyed the law for us we need not obey 

* Works, Vol. V. p. 46, 47. t lb. p. 84, 86. % lb. p. 93. 



100 



it for ourselves, for that the law does not require 
two obediences ; neither in this case is there any 
grace in our pardon ; that Christ's obedience be- 
ing imputed to us involves a double absurdity, 
etc."* We much regret that we have not access 
to any full statement of the Professor's views on 
this subject. Dr. Dana's testimony is, however, 
worthy of all confidence. 

Mr. Eells says, in his Sermons, that the ancient 
doctrine of justification is almost wholly unknown 
among the descendants of the Puritans ; and that 
men in high places in the church seem to find 
a malignant pleasure, first, in carricaturing it, 
and then in holding it up to derision and eon* 
tempt.f 

There are those who truly hold the doctrine of 
the Westminster standards on this subject, and 
state it in the language there employed ; there are 
those, again, who accept the Westminster doc- 
trine, but reject the Westminster phraseology, a 
class, smaller, it is thought, than many good men 
are willing to admit; the prevailing theology, 
however, it is believed, rejects both the ancient 
phraseology and the ancient doctrine ; it teaches 
neither a justification by works, nor a justification 
on the ground of Christ's righteousness, but a jus- 
tification, purely gratuitous, without direct respect 
to any righteousness whatever. 

* Remonstrance^ p. 9. f Sermons, p. 33. 



101 



We have thus endeavored to give a candid ex- 
hibition of the Theology of New England in rela- 
tion to Inspiration, Election, Man's connection 
with Adam, Sin and Depravity, Inability, Regen- 
eration Conversion or Effectual Calling, the 
Atonement and Justification — the great doctrines 
of the Gospel. No more is needed, we conceive, 
to exhibit the peculiarities of the Theology of 
New England, although there are still other points, 
which it would be interesting to pass under re- 
view. 

What, then, is the conclusion of the whole 
matter? It seems to be this: — There are some 
among the orthodox of New Englaud, who hold 
and teach the doctrines of the Westminster Con- 
fession of Faith, as held and taught by the puri- 
tan fathers. This class it is to be feared is not 
numerous. 

There is another section of the orthodox, which 
must be regarded as holding and teaching, to all 
intents and purposes, the Arminianism of John 
Wesley. This class is increasing. The tendency 
of things seerns to be to sink all doctrinal differ- 
ences between Weslevans and Calvinians. 



That theology, however, which claims to be 
the theology of New England, embraces the great 
middle class. It teaches the decrees of God, a 
particular providence, election, and the persever- 
ance of the saints, as taught by Calvinists gener- 
ally. It rejects the imputation of Adam's sin and 
Christ's righteousness, and a limited, efficacious 

9» 



102 



atonement. It asserts that man's ability is com- 
mensurate with his responsibility, and that his in- 
ability consists altogether in his unwillingness. 
On these points the great mass of New England 
divines seem to be agreed. As to the doctrine of 
sin, depravity, and regeneration, there exists a di- 
versity of opinion. Some hold to a depravity of 
nature antecedent to actual sin, and to a regenera- 
tion by the Spirit, in which man is altogether pas- 
sive. Others reject the doctrine of a sinful na- 
ture ; assert that all sin consists in unholy or sin- 
ful exercises ; and teach a regeneration, which is 
but a change in the governing purpose of the 
soul, or of the balance of the susceptibilities, or 
of a nature to sin, but not sinful, into a nature to 
holiness, but not holy. This is the theology of 
New Haven, Andover, and probably of Bangor 
also — the theology of the " Bibliotheca Sacra," 
the great New England quarterly — the theology 
of the Congregationalist — the theology, in short, 
of the influences that to a great extent control 
and determine public opinion all over the coun- 
try — the theology, it is claimed, and would seem 
with good reason, of a very large majority of New 
England divines. 

The prevailing theology in New England, at 
present, does not appear to be the theology of the 
Puritans. 

It will hardly be denied by any, that the pre- 
ceding statements are, in the main at least, cor- 
rect. Jt may, however, be said, that these differ- 



103 



ences are of little, very little importance ; the 
great essentials are held in common by both par- 
ties. While it is joyfully conceded, that much 
valuable truth is held even by those whose views 
are most erroneous, it cannot, we think, be admit- 
ted consistently with truth, that the differences 
specified are unimportant. The old and the new 
are not the same — either in their principles or 
their influence. If the one is truth, the other, in 
so far as it is another, is error. If the one is meat 
and drink to the soul, the other is spiritual poi- 
son. Whoever carefully examines these systems 
of doctrine, will see at once that in relation to 
some of the most momentous subjects that con- 
cern man's salvation, they are antagonistic. It 
cannot then be of little moment which is received 
into the heart, or which is proclaimed from our 
pulpits. 

There is prevalent intense indifference to doc- 
trinal truth. A popular liberality smiles compla- 
cently on every form of religious belief (except 
old fashioned orthodoxy,) and insists that one is 
just about as good as another. It is further to be 
feared, that there is very little, earnest, thorough, 
discriminating preaching of the truth, even as far 
as it is professedly received ; that many subjects 
of vital importance to the soul, are seldom men- 
tioned in the pulpit ; — that many dangerous errors 
abound, against which, the warning voice of the 
watchmen on Zion's walls is seldom lifted. This 
state of things is far from consistent with that 



104 



importance every where attached to doctrinal 
truth in God's word. Our Savior thought it 
necessary to caution his disciples in very pointed 
terms against the doctrine of the Pharisees and 
Sadducees. Paul reminded Timothy that, "All 
Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is 
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, 
for instruction in righteousness, that the man of 
God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto 
all good works," at the same time exhorting him 
to " hold fast the form of sound words " he had re- 
ceived, and warning him against those who would 
not endure sound doctrine, but would, after their 
own lusts, heap to themselves teachers, having 
itching ears. The same apostle must have thought 
the truth as it is in Jesus of momentous impor- 
tance when he thus wrote the Galatians : " But 
though we or an angel from heaven preach any 
other gospel unto you than that which we have 
preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we 
said before so say I now again, if any man preach 
any other gospel unto you than that ye have re- 
ceived let him be accursed." John, in his Epistle 
to the elect, lady expresses similar views : — 
" Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the 
doctrine of Christ hath not God. If there come 
any unto you and bring not this doctrine, receive 
him not into your house neither bid him God 
speed ; for he that biddeth him God speed is par- 
taker of his evil deeds." There is set forth in 
God's word a system, called at one time, the 



105 



" Gospel," at another the " Truth as it is in Jesus," 
at another the " Doctrine of Christ," and at still 
another the " Word of God." To this system of 
truth the Scriptures continually attach the very 
first importance. It is the sword of the Spirit — 
the wisdom of God and power of God unto salva- 
tion. It is this which the Spirit uses in convert- 
ing the sinner, and in sanctifying and comforting 
the people of God. Nothing else is the sword of 
the Spirit; nothing else is the means of effect- 
ing the salvation of souls. God does not bless 
error. Nor does he honor a diluted, or a muti- 
lated gospel. No other truth, however important, 
can accomplish the ends for which God has or- 
dained the gospel of his grace. It alone will re- 
form what is wrong among men, and save souls 
from eternal misery. 

If these things be true, as they are beyond all 
controversy, then that indifference and that liber- 
ality already mentioned must be simply criminal 
in God's sight. If there is anything in this world 
about which the church ought to be jealous, it is 
the purity, fulness and completeness of the doc- 
trine proclaimed in our pulpits and issued from 
our press. If souls are converted and sanctified — 
edified to the highest degree — the truth as it is in 
Jesus, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, 
must be learned. Those who substitute something 
else for it, give famishing souls a stone instead of 
bread. Those who keep back a part are unfaithful 
to their Master, who has bidden them declare the 



106 



whole counsel of God. Those who abandon im- 
portant truth, leaving error to abound unopposed, 
must be regarded as traitors to their Lord. If ever 
the world is converted and the reign of righteous- 
ness inaugurated, it will not be by leaving out of 
sight the truth of the gospel — nor by abandoning 
whatever of it is offensive to the carnal mind — nor 
by the preaching of error ; — not even by the pro- 
clamation of other truth however important. It 
is only a pure gospel in its integrity — proclaimed 
with the simplicity with which it is set forth in 
the inspired volume, that will be the means of 
ushering in that glorious era. Most assuredly the 
church, styled the pillar and the ground of the truth 
is called upon to look well to the truth, it is her 
duty to maintain and propagate. 

Let us then search the Scriptures. Let us go to 
the great Teacher and find out the truth. Let us 
hold it fast. Let us feed upon it ourselves. Let 
us send it — the bread and water of life — to the per- 
ishing world around us. Let us give our influence 
to the support and propagation of a pure gospel. 
Let no maxims of worldly prudence, no false liber- 
ality, induce us to aid in building up the cause of 
error. Let us consent to no theology so " compre- 
hensive " as to embrace both truth and falsehood. 
Let us not be " children tossed to and fro and car- 
ried about with every wind of doctrine, by the 
sleight of men and cunning craftiness whereby 
they lie in wait to deceive ; but speaking the truth 
in love, grow up into him in all things which is 
the head even Christ." 



I 



UK 






LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



021 064 258 4 




